tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-85589977754251370612024-02-20T00:03:11.104-08:00The Jamtlandic Projectcreating an etymologically based orthography for jamtlandicJPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8558997775425137061.post-80788711178700709452008-08-16T10:36:00.000-07:002008-09-05T16:22:18.213-07:00The clusters łg/rg and gd<span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><br />The clusters <span style="font-style: italic;">łg</span></span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><span>/</span><span style="font-style: italic;">rg</span></span><br />In Modern Jamtlandic, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Old Norse</span></a> clusters <span style="font-style: italic;">łg</span>/<span style="font-style: italic;">rg</span> have typically become pronounced [ɽj]/[ɾj], i.e., as if they were spelled "<span style="font-style: italic;">łg</span><span style="font-style: italic;">j</span><span>/</span><span style="font-style: italic;">rgj</span>". In this respect Jamtlandic follows <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Swedish</span></a> rather than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Norwegian</span></a>. The crucial thing here is that Jamtlandic has independently invented this softened pronounciation of <span style="font-style: italic;">g</span>. In the case of Swedish, <span style="font-style: italic;">g</span> has become a "<span style="font-style: italic;">j</span>" in this cluster due to the fact that it used to be soft, i.e. [ɣ], in Old Norse. In the case of Jamtlandic the explanation is fundamentally different. Indeed, the softening is due a a generalization of the softened pronounciation in the definite form of mainly masculine nouns. I quote Vidar Reinhammar's <span style="font-style: italic;">Hammerdalsmålet</span> (p.23):<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span>"I <span style="font-style: italic;">Lg</span> och <span style="font-style: italic;">rg</span> har g övergått till <span style="font-style: italic;">j</span> (<span style="font-style: italic;">âLj</span> 'älg', <span style="font-style: italic;">vâr</span>j 'varg').<br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span>Troligen är det inte frågan om en regelrätt övergång<br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span>utan om ett ersättande av <span style="font-style: italic;">Lg</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">rg</span> med <span style="font-style: italic;">Lj</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">rj</span>, lånade<br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span>från den bestämda formen (<span style="font-style: italic;">âLjen</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">vârjen</span>), där övergången<br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span>till <span style="font-style: italic;">j</span> är regelbunden. Detta utbyte har i så fall antagligen<br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span>ägt rum ganska sent i tiden."<br /><br />The phenomenon is more obvious for words of the type <span style="font-style: italic;">fisk</span> [fɪsk] 'fish' which in the definite form is <span style="font-style: italic;">fisk·jen</span> [ˈfɪʂːən] 'the fish'. In Modern Jamtlandic one often hears an incorrect [fɪʂː] "<span style="font-style: italic;">fiskj</span>" in the indefinite form due to the softening in the definite. According to V. Reinhammar, this is a very recent devlopment (p. 36: "<span style="font-style: italic;">Sådana former är unga.</span>" 'Such forms are young.').<br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span>The main conclusion we must draw isn't to forbid people to pronounce <span style="font-style: italic;">łg</span>/<span style="font-style: italic;">rg</span> as [ɽj]/[ɾj], but to use a formally softening <span style="font-style: italic;">j</span> in the definite. Thus, nouns like <span style="font-style: italic;">æłg</span> 'elk' and <span style="font-style: italic;">bærg</span> 'mountain' are in the definite form <span style="font-style: italic;">æłg·jen</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">bærg·jeð</span>, respectively.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">The cluster <span style="font-style: italic;">gd</span></span><br />A perhaps equally interesting phenomenon is that the ON cluster <span style="font-style: italic;">gð</span> [ɣð] in Modern Jamtlandic often is pronounced as [jd], i.e., as if it were spelled "<span style="font-style: italic;">jd</span>". In 21th century Jamtlandic spelling this is often represented as <span style="font-style: italic;">(ö)yd</span> or <span style="font-style: italic;">(e)id</span>. Needless to say, the proper Jamtlandic pronounciation is [gd] (older: [ɣd]) corresponding to the spelling <span style="font-style: italic;">gd</span>, and the improper pronounciation is directly borrowed from Swedish without any form of internal phonetical evolution.<br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span>A tragic example of the incorrect swedified pronounciation is the "official" Jamtlandic lyrics of <a href="http://www.mdh.se/ima/personal/lln01/jamtamot/dokument/sangbok4/03-jamtlandssangen.html"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Jämtlandssången</span></a>, the inofficial national anthem of Jämtland (P.-G. Norman & B. Oscarsson):<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span>"<span style="font-style: italic;">Mæ sir frå <span style="font-weight: bold;">höjdom</span></span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;"> bort mot åsom,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;"> der kjörsan står milla gålom</span>"<br /><br />where I have quoted only three lines due to copyright reasons. (Even the <a href="http://www.mdh.se/ima/personal/lln01/jamtamot/jamtlands-tidning/jt1983-2/jt1983-2_05_jamtlands-fana.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jamtlandic flag</span></a> needs a license fee paid to private interests to be manufactured and sold! The legal owners of the flag are <a href="http://www.storsjoyran.se/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Storsjöyran AB</span></a> and <a href="http://web.telia.com/%7Eu63501054/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bo Oscarsson</span></a>. This is the reason I don't use the Jamtlandic flag at all in this blog.) The word in question is "<span style="font-style: italic;">höjdom</span>" [ˈhœjdɔm], dative plural of "<span style="font-style: italic;">höjd</span>" [hœjd] 'height, hill'. (Today <a href="http://www.mdh.se/ima/personal/lln01/jamtamot/dokument/dok.jamska/akademien_vagledning-for-stavning-av-jamska.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">it's recommended</span></a> that one should spell these words "<span style="font-style: italic;">høydom</span>", "<span style="font-style: italic;">høyd</span>".)<span style="font-size:100%;"> Let's quote Vidar Reinhammar in his discussion about the fate of ON <span style="font-style: italic;">ð</span> (p. 22):<br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;">"</span><span style="font-size:100%;">Däremot står det kvar i <span style="font-style: italic;">reid</span> 'skogstrakt', <span style="font-style: italic;">bögd</span> 'bygd',<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><b> </b></span> <span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">högd</span> eller <span style="font-style: italic;">höjd</span> 'höjd'.</span>"<br /><br />Note the order <span style="font-style: italic;">högd</span> then <span style="font-style: italic;">höjd</span>, not the reverse, suggesting he assumes <span style="font-style: italic;">högd</span> is a more proper dialectal form than <span style="font-style: italic;">höjd</span>. (Not very important, but it should also be noted that he writes <span style="font-style: italic;">höjd</span> rather than "<span style="font-style: italic;">höyd</span>", i.e., he doesn't consider the softened form to have a diphthong.) Since my orthography focuses on the pure dialectal forms, it's obvious I spell <span style="font-style: italic;">høgd</span> with <span style="font-style: italic;">g</span>. (The <span style="font-style: italic;">g</span> suggests that the related verb pronounced [ˈhœ.œʏː] or [ˈhœʏːjə] 'raise, increase', ON <span style="font-style: italic;">hœgja</span>, should be spelled <span style="font-style: italic;">høgje</span> rather than "<span style="font-style: italic;">høye</span>".) Another example is <span style="font-style: italic;">sløgd</span> [l̥œɡd] 'handicraft', which in Swedish is <span style="font-style: italic;">slöjd</span>. I guess most modern Jamtlandic writers following the recommendations would spell it "<span style="font-style: italic;">shlöyd</span>" [sic!]. (A third example is <span style="font-style: italic;">nøgd</span> [nœɡd] 'satisfied', which in Swedish is <span style="font-style: italic;">nöjd</span> and which in Jamtlandic today typically would be spelled "<span style="font-style: italic;">nöyd</span>". The <span style="font-style: italic;">g</span> suggests that the related noun pronounced [ˈnœ.œʏː] or [ˈnœʏːjə] 'satisfaction, pleasure', ON <span style="font-style: italic;">nœgi</span>, should be spelled <span style="font-style: italic;">nøgje</span> rather than "<span style="font-style: italic;">nøye</span>".)JPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8558997775425137061.post-59795917968296755662008-08-14T14:52:00.001-07:002008-08-14T16:09:33.900-07:00Verb conjugation w.r.t. grammatical personThis time I'll discuss the conjugation of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb"><span style="font-weight: bold;">verbs</span></a> with respect to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_person"><span style="font-weight: bold;">grammatical person</span></a>. In <span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >Swedish dialects and folk traditions 2004</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (ed. Maj Reinhammar) I noticed the verb form <span style="font-style: italic;">vilin</span> </span><span style="font-size:100%;">[</span>ˈʋɪˑlɪn<span style="font-size:100%;">]</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> 'want' (second person plural). The part of the 52 lines long poem where <span style="font-style: italic;">vilin</span> is mentioned goes like:<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Såm skä nöna sta igen</span><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Å krus tä Mass Jansa Jlin,</span><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Å ha bydi Hössbonn sänn</span><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Frila bö däck, dä da <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">vilin</span></span><br /><br />(where "<span style="font-style: italic;">Jlin</span>" is read as <span style="font-style: italic;">Ilin</span> </span><span style="font-size:100%;">[</span>ˈɪˑlɪn<span style="font-size:100%;">]</span><span style="font-size:100%;">, the colloquial Jamtlandic form for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helene_%28name%29"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Helen</span></a>) with the more or less literal translation<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Which will now go away again</span><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">And cookies to Matt Johnson's Ellen,</span><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">And has invited her master</span><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Much was offered to you, that you <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">want</span></span><br /><br />There are two things which are interesting about <span style="font-style: italic;">vilin</span>. Namely, the ending <span style="font-style: italic;">-in</span> rather than <span style="font-style: italic;">-an</span>, and the fact that it's not an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_mood"><span style="font-weight: bold;">imperative mood</span></a> but in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood#Indicative"><span style="font-weight: bold;">indicative</span></a>. Note that today the ending in question is exclusively <span style="font-style: italic;">-an</span>, and verbs are only conjugated with respect to grammatical person in the imperative.<br /><br />The ending <span style="font-style: italic;">-in</span> is of course the old one, but is a more modern form than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Old Norse</span></a> <span style="font-style: italic;">-ið</span>. Indeed, in ON, <span style="font-style: italic;">vilin</span> would've been <span style="font-style: italic;">viljið</span> [</span>ˈwɪɫɪ̯ɪð<span style="font-size:100%;">]. The 18th century form <span style="font-style: italic;">vilin</span> probably comes from an older <span style="font-style: italic;">vili</span> [</span>ˈwɪlɪ<span style="font-size:100%;">] with a dropped <span style="font-style: italic;">-ð</span> (ON <span style="font-style: italic;">ð</span> after a vowel has always become silent in Jamtlandic). An <span style="font-style: italic;">-n</span> has been added, probably with Swedish as a rôle model. (In slightly outdated Swedish it'd be <span style="font-style: italic;">viljen</span>, from Old Swedish <span style="font-style: italic;">viljin</span>.) The reason is probably to avoid ambiguities due to converging pronounciations. For example, ON <span style="font-style: italic;">kastið</span> 'throw' (second person plural) would straightforwardly have become "<span style="font-style: italic;">kasteð</span>" [</span>ˈkastə<span style="font-size:100%;">] in Jamtlandic, which would be the same as the imperative and the past participle. It's obvious that the <span style="font-style: italic;">-n</span> was added at a late stage since otherwise one would end up with "<span style="font-style: italic;">vili</span>" and "<span style="font-style: italic;">kasta</span>" due to (at least for the latter) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasal_vowel"><span style="font-weight: bold;">nasalization</span></a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_vowel"><span style="font-weight: bold;">opening</span></a> and dropped <span style="font-style: italic;">-n</span>. I would definitely suggest that old short stemmed verbs get <span style="font-style: italic;">-in</span> (like e.g. <span style="font-style: italic;">vilin</span>, since <span style="font-style: italic;">vil</span> was a short stem) and old long stemmed verbs get <span style="font-style: italic;">-an</span> (like e.g. <span style="font-style: italic;">kastan</span>, since <span style="font-style: italic;">kast</span> was a long stem).<br /><br />The other thing to discuss is the fact <span style="font-style: italic;">vilin</span> isn't used as an imperative in the poem, but as an indicative. It's apparently the fact that in mid 18th century Jamtlandic, at least sporadically, one could conjugate a verb in the indicative mood with respect to grammatical person. Today this is only the case for the imperative mood, and even though it's standard in the second person plural, it's not in first person plural. One evidence that it still exist is the following quote from p. 99 in the PhD dissertation <span style="font-style: italic;">Om dativ i svenska och norska dialekter: 1. Dativ vid verb</span> by Maj Reinhammar (1973):<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Lyckönska:</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">lyckönschom nu bröfoLkom</span> Mörsil<br /><br />which translates to 'Let us congratulate our brother nations!' In standardized spelling, the first person plural ending would be <span style="font-style: italic;">-um</span>. My suggestion is that, since it was possible in 18th century Jamtlandic (which I count as Late Modern Jamtlandic, the period 1700-now i.e. the period for which Jamtlandic has been studied by scholars), it should be possible to conjugate verbs with respect to grammatical person.<br /><br />As an example, take the verb <span style="font-style: italic;">kaste</span> 'throw'. Followin the prescription above, the "light" (modern) conjugation pattern for the indicative mood would be<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-size:100%;" >Pres.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-size:100%;" >Imp.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"></span><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >kaste</span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >kasteð</span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><br />while the "heavy" (archaic) conjugation is<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Pres.</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Imp.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"></span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Sg.</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >kaste</span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">kasteð</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"></span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">1st Pl.</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >kastum</span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">kasteð</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"></span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">2nd Pl.</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >kastan</span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">kasteð</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"></span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">3rd Pl.</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >kaste</span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">kasteð</span><br /><br />(The imperfect tense has a single conjugation for this specific class of verbs. Other classes of verbs have a "full" conjugation pattern with respect to grammatical person.) For the imperative, I think it's a good idea to impose the special first person plural as standard, giving<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Sg.</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">1st Pl.</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span> <span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">2nd Pl.</span><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >Kast!</span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >Kastum!</span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Kastan!</span><br /><br />This concludes the post.<br /></span>JPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8558997775425137061.post-24090735477450698462008-08-13T14:16:00.000-07:002008-08-13T16:17:38.120-07:00Spelling 'orkj' from 'yrkj'<span style="font-size:100%;">In </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >Swedish dialects and folk traditions 2004</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (ed. Maj Reinhammar) in the contribution </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >En jämtländsk 1700-talsdikt</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> by Maj Reinhammar where a mid 18th century Jamtlandic (presumably in the <a href="http://www.offerdal.com/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Offerdal</span></a> dialect) poem is analyzed, it is written<br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b>Jämtskans öppna »grumliga» ö-ljud, som fonetiskt<br /><b> </b><b> </b>brukar tecknas med »åttan» (stundom å-haltigt) eller<br /><b> </b><b> </b>»skålpundsåttan» (u-haltigt) skrivs i dikten med ö,<br /><b> </b><b> </b>t.ex.</span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" > </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >nöna</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> 'nu', (3 o. 21), </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >hör</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (44 o. 47), </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >döm</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (19),<br /><b> </b><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >söm</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (20; vanligen </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >såm</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> 16, 21, 27 o. 34), </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >nör</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (16),</span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >örskje</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (12), </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >körskjen</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (26), </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >föll<sup>38</sup></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (29, 35 o. 41),<br /><b> </b><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >-örta</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (36), [...]<br /><br />(The numbers within parantheses refer to the line in the poem.) The sounds in question are what in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet"><span style="font-weight: bold;">IPA</span></a> are written [</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA" style="font-size:100%;">ɞ</span><span style="font-size:100%;">] (»åttan», i.e. "the eight", in Swedish <a href="http://www.sofi.se/GetDoc?meta_id=1344"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Landsmålsalfabetet</span></a>, i.e. 'The Dialect Alphabet') and [</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA" style="font-size:100%;">ə</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA" style="font-size:100%;">̹ </span><span style="font-size:100%;">] (»skålpundsåttan», i.e. "the pound eight"), where the latter is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundedness"><span style="font-weight: bold;">rounded</span></a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwa"><span style="font-weight: bold;">schwa</span></a>.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.sofi.se/images/NA/landsmal.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px;" src="http://www.sofi.se/images/NA/landsmal.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Fig. 1: </span><span style="font-style: italic;">Swedish Landsmålsalfabetet. (Source: </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.sofi.se/GetDoc?meta_id=1344"><span style="font-weight: bold;">SOFI</span></a><span style="font-style: italic;">.)<br /><br /></span>The two interesting words in the context are <span style="font-style: italic;">örskje</span> [</span><span style="font-size:100%;">ˈɞʂːə</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span>] 'wood, material' and <span style="font-style: italic;">körskjen</span> [</span>ˈtʃɞʂːən</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span>] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dative_case"><span style="font-weight: bold;">dat.</span></a> 'the church', derived from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Old Norse</span></a> <span style="font-style: italic;">yrki</span> [</span>ˈʏrcɪ</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span>] and <span style="font-style: italic;">kyrkju·nni</span> [</span>ˈcʏrcɪ̯ʊnːɪ</span>], respectively. Note that the spellings are semi-etymological in that the <span style="font-style: italic;">k</span> is spelled out, one would've expected <span style="font-style: italic;">rs</span> rather than <span style="font-style: italic;">rskj</span> to denote [<span style="font-size:100%;">ʂː</span>]. It can't be ruled out that rskj denotes an earlier stage in the phonetical evolution, perhaps [ʂtʃ].<br /><br />Let's take a look at what these too words are in Hammerdal dialect (<span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">H</span>), Klövsjö dialect (<span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">K</span>) and Åre dialect (<span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Å</span>), where we employ the usual references:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">H</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">K</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Å</span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;">yrki</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span>[ˈœ.œʂː]<span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span>[ˈœʂːə]<span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span>[ˈœ.œʂː]<br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;">kyrkju</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span>[ˈtʃœ.œʂː]<span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span> [ˈtʃœʂːə]<span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span>[ˈtʃœ.œʂː]<br /><br />(Note that I have considered ON<span style="font-style: italic;"> kyrkju</span> rather than <span style="font-style: italic;">kyrkju·nni</span>.) We see that all dialects in question have developed <span style="font-style: italic;">yrkj</span> into [œʂː]. Does this mean we should spell <span style="font-style: italic;">yrkj</span>, as according to the etymological spelling? (Compare with e.g. <span style="font-style: italic;">kyn</span> [ tʃøːn] 'gender', ON <span style="font-style: italic;">kyn</span>.) Or more phonetical as <span style="font-style: italic;">ørkj</span>? There's another choice, namely <span style="font-style: italic;">orkj</span>. This seems suggestively more consistent with [<span style="font-size:100%;">ɞʂː</span>] of mid 18th century Offerdal dialect, and, in fact, more consistent with what has happened to ON <span style="font-style: italic;">yrk</span>.<br /><br />To explain what I mean, consider the more general situation of ON <span style="font-style: italic;">yrC</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">yłC</span> where <span style="font-style: italic;">C</span> denotes an appropriate consonant, e.g. <span style="font-style: italic;">k</span>. To be specific, consider e.g. ON <span style="font-style: italic;">myrk-</span> 'dark', <span style="font-style: italic;">kyłd</span> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun"><span style="font-weight: bold;">n.</span></a> 'cold', and <span style="font-style: italic;">fylgði</span> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_tense"><span style="font-weight: bold;">imp.</span></a> 'followed':<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">H</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span> <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">K</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Å</span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;">myrk-</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span>[mar̥k]<span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span>?<span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span>[mɔʂk]<br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;">kyłd</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span>[</span>tʃaɖː<span>]</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span>?</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span>[</span>tʃɔɖː<span>]</span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-style: italic;">fylgði</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span>[</span>ˈfa.aɖː<span>]</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span>[</span>ˈfɞɖːə<span>]</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span>[</span>ˈfɔ.ɔɖː<span>]<br /><br />These samples are perfectly consistent with the spellings <span style="font-style: italic;">mork</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">kjo</span></span><span style="font-style: italic;">ł</span><span><span style="font-style: italic;">d</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">fo</span></span><span style="font-style: italic;">łde</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>with <span style="font-style: italic;">o</span> rather than <span style="font-style: italic;">u</span> (or <span style="font-style: italic;">á</span>, or any other vowel) as a stem vowel<span style="font-style: italic;">. </span>Adding a<span style="font-style: italic;"> j</span> in the equation, one would get suggestively an implied<span style="font-style: italic;"> i</span>-umlaut of <span style="font-style: italic;">o</span><span style="font-style: italic;"></span>.<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>This would give the spellings <span style="font-style: italic;">orkje</span> 'wood, material' and <span style="font-style: italic;">kjorkje</span> 'church'.<span style="font-style: italic;"></span> It's the<span style="font-style: italic;"> j</span> which tells us that <span style="font-style: italic;">o</span> is pronounced as if it were spelled <span style="font-style: italic;">ø</span>. One could imagine the spelling ø too, i.e., "<span style="font-style: italic;">ørkje</span>" and "<span style="font-style: italic;">kørkje</span>", respectively. This could need more discussion.<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span>To conclude, ON <span style="font-style: italic;">yrkj</span> is spelled <span style="font-style: italic;">orkj</span>, though it<br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> </b></span>can be in principle<span style="font-style: italic;"> ørkj</span> as well.<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span>Next time I'll probably discuss the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_person"><span style="font-weight: bold;">second person plural</span></a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb"><span style="font-weight: bold;">verb</span></a> ending <span style="font-style: italic;">-in</span> found in <span style="font-size:100%;">the word </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >vilin</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> [</span>ˈʋɪˑlɪn<span style="font-size:100%;">] 'want' in the poem discussed in </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >Swedish dialects and folk traditions 2004</span><span style="font-style: italic;"></span>.<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span>JPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8558997775425137061.post-26303810169786182442008-08-09T14:19:00.000-07:002008-08-09T15:15:52.550-07:00Cardinal numbers (part 3)In this post we'll conclude the discussion about the cardinal numbers. We have:<br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">H</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Å</span></b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">N</span></b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">J</span></b><br /><b> </b><b> </b>30<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈtɾɛtːɪ]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>?<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">þríatigi</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">trettig</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>40<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈfœʈːɪ]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>?<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">fjóratigi</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">fyrtig</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>50<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈfɛmtɪ]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>[ˈfæmtɪ]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">femmtigi</span><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;"> femtig</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>60<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈsɛkstɪ]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>?<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">sextigi</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">sekstig</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>70<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈʂɵtːɪ]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>?<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">sjautigi</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">sjúttig</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>80<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈɔtːɪ]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>?<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">áttatigi</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">áttig</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>90<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈnɪtːɪ]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>?<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">níutigi</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic;">nittig</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>100<b> </b>[ˈhɵnɾə]<b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈhɵnːəɾ]<b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic;">hundrað</span><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic;">húnnreð</span><br /><b> </b>1000<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈtʉːsn̩]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>?<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><i>þúsund</i><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><i>túsn</i><br /><br /><b> </b>Unfortunately, my references don't say much more than this. Note the apocopated form [ˈhɵnːəɾ] for 100 in the Åre dialect (<b><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Å</span></b>) suggesting a spelling "<span style="font-style: italic;">húnnr</span>" without <span style="font-style: italic;">-eð</span>. I think this is a secondary form borrowed from Swedish <span style="font-style: italic;">hundra</span>, though. (Swedish words ending in <span style="font-style: italic;">-a</span> typically correspond to apocopated forms in <b><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Å</span></b>.) Alternatively it's the acute accent which has forced an apocopation.<br /><b> </b>Cardinal numbers of mixed form such as e.g. 21, 657 etc. are form in the following way: <span style="font-style: italic;">tjugueitt</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">sekshúnnreðfemtigsjú</span>, respectively, which is very straightforward.<br /><b> </b>The system above works for the cardinal numbers 1<b>—</b>999,999. Cardinal numbers greater than 999,999 don't traditionally exist in Jamtlandic, though one could say 1,000,000 is <span style="font-style: italic;">milljón</span> [ˈmɪlːɪ̯uˑn] and 1,000,000,000 is <span style="font-style: italic;">milljarð</span> [ˈmɪlːɪ̯ɑˑɽ].<br /><b> Note</b>: The cardinal numbers <span style="font-style: italic;">húnnreð</span> '100' and <span style="font-style: italic;">túsn</span> '1000' can be considered as neuter nouns while <span style="font-style: italic;">milljón</span> '1,000,000' and <span style="font-style: italic;">milljarð</span> '1,000,000,000' are masculine.<br /><br /><b> </b>I think next time we'll take a look at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number_%28linguistics%29"><span style="font-weight: bold;">ordinal numbers</span></a> ('first', 'second',...).JPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8558997775425137061.post-88983143278319397402008-08-08T14:57:00.000-07:002008-08-09T14:19:15.131-07:00Cardinal numbers (part 2)Let's continue the cardinal numbers (I don't consider the Klövsjö dialect anymore due to the fact that the reference doesn't have any cardinal numbers in it):<br /><br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">H</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Å</span></b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">N</span></b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">J</span></b><br /><b> </b><b> </b>11<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈɛlːɵ(ʋ)]<b> </b><b> </b> [ˈœlːɔʋ]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;"> ellufu</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><span style="font-style: italic;">elluv</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>12<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[tʰaɽʋ]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>[tʰɔɽʋ]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">tołf</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">tołv</span><br /><b style="font-style: italic;"> </b><b> </b>13<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈtɾɛtːæn]<b> </b><b> </b>[ˈtɾetːɐn]<b> </b> <b> </b> <span style="font-style: italic;">þrettán</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">trettan</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>14<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈfɪ̯ʊʈːæn]<b> </b><b> </b>[ˈfɪ̯ʊʈːɐn]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">fjórtán</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><span style="font-style: italic;">fjórtan</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>15<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈfɛmtæn]<b> </b><b> </b>[ˈfæmtɐn]<b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">femtán</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><span style="font-style: italic;">femtan</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>16<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈsɛkstæn]<b> </b><b> </b>[ˈsekstɐn]<b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">sextán</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><span style="font-style: italic;">sekstan</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>17<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈsœtːæn]<b> </b><b> </b>[ˈʂœtːɐn]<b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;"> søytján</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><span style="font-style: italic;">søttan</span><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><b> </b><br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>[ˈʂœtːæn]<br /><b> </b><b> </b>18<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈat(ː)æn]<b> </b><b> </b>[ˈaʈːɐn]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">átján</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">attan</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>19<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈnɪtːæn]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>[ˈnɪtːɐn]<b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;"> nítján</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">nittan</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>20<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈtʃɵˑɣə]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>[ˈtʃɵˑɣɵ]<b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">tjogu</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">tjugu</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Notes</span>: <span>(1)</span> Old Norse had various words for 11. In Old Icelandic it was <a href="http://www.northvegr.org/zoega/h112.php"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">ellifu</span></a>, in Old Swedish <a href="http://runeberg.org/svetym/0206.html"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">ellufa</span></a>. I assume Old Jamtlandic (<span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">N</span>) had <span style="font-style: italic;">ellufu</span>, but I could be wrong. What's peculiar is that the unstressed vowel hasn't become a schwa ([ə]) but either [ɵ] or [ɔ]. Maybe one considered the word being a compound <span style="font-style: italic;">el-lufu</span> where <span style="font-style: italic;">lufu</span> became simplified to <span style="font-style: italic;">luv</span> giving <span style="font-style: italic;">elluv</span> rather than "<span style="font-style: italic;">ellev</span>"?<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span>(2)</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span>In Jamtlandic it's not too uncommon to double a consonant after a long vowel, e.g. ON <span style="font-style: italic;">sýta</span> 'to lament' has become <span style="font-style: italic;">sytte</span> [</span>ˈsʏ.ʏtː<span>] 'to nurse' in Jamtlandic.</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span>That seems to have happened for the numbers 17</span>—<span>19. Note especially 17 where the dipthong has been lost in the process.</span><span> (The Hammerdal dialect always preserves diphtongs otherwise, even the short ones, which suggests one should spell "<span style="font-style: italic;">søyttan</span>".)</span><span> Also note how an unstressed <span style="font-style: italic;">-ján</span> has become <span style="font-style: italic;">-an</span>. It's possible the<span style="font-style: italic;"> j</span> was dropped very early.</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span>(3) The number 20</span><span> has a pretty diffuse etymology. Old Icelandic had</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">tuttugu</span>, Old Swedish <span style="font-style: italic;">tjugu</span>. I use the etymology found <a href="http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/ordboksoek/ordbok.cgi?OPP=tjue&bokmaal=S%F8k+i+Bokm%E5lsordboka&ordbok=bokmaal&s=n&alfabet=n&renset=j"><span style="font-weight: bold;">here</span></a>, which assumes a <span style="font-style: italic;">u</span>-broken form of a root <span style="font-style: italic;">teg-</span> (<span style="font-style: italic;">tegu-</span> → <span style="font-style: italic;">tjog-</span>).<br /><br />To be continued in Part 3.JPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8558997775425137061.post-7330081513394493522008-08-04T16:27:00.000-07:002008-08-04T17:45:47.666-07:00Cardinal numbers (part 1)To do something concrete, we can derive the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_numbers_in_English"><span style="font-weight: bold;">cardinal numbers</span></a> of Jamtlandic. I'll use the references<br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b>[1] <a href="http://www.ssp.nu/nyheter/gustavadolf/folklivsbygd/hammerdal.htm"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> Hammerdalsmålet</span>, Vidar Reinhammar</span></a><br /><b> </b><b> </b>[2]<b> </b><a href="http://www.bokfynd.nu/9163110806.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Klövsjöord</span>, Gösta Edlund et al</span></a><br /><b> </b><b> </b>[3] <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://libris.kb.se/bib/3104824"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Åremålet</span></a><a href="http://libris.kb.se/bib/3104824"><span style="font-weight: bold;">, Anna-Lena Forsåker</span></a><br /><br />In the table below, <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">H</span>, <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">K</span> and <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Å</span> will refer to the dialects of Hammerdal, Klövsjö and Åre, respectively, with evidences found in references [1], [2] and [3], respectively. Furthermore, <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">N</span> will refer to the reconstructed etymology of the (Late) Jamtlandic dialect of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Old Norse</span></a>. (I'll use <a href="http://www.northvegr.org/zoega/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">this site</span></a> as a source for the reconstructions.) Finally, <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">J</span> will refer to the derived orthography based on the dialectal evidences and the ON etymology.<br /><b> </b>The first cardinal numbers (in the sense of abstract counting) are given by<br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">H</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">K</span></b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Å</span></b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">N</span></b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">J</span></b><br /><b> </b><b> </b>1<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[eɪtː]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>?<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>[etː]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">eitt</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">eitt</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>2<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[tʋuː]<b> </b><b> </b> ?<b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> [tʋuː]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">tvá</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">tvó</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>3<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[tɾiː]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>?<b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> [tɾiː]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic;">þrí</span><span style="font-style: italic;" title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">a</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">trí</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>4<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[fyː.yɾ]<b> </b><b> </b>?<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>[fyː.yɾ]<b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">fjóra</span><b> </b><b> </b> <span style="font-style: italic;">fýre</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>5<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[fɛmː]<b> </b><b> </b>?<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>[fæmː]<b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">femm</span><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">femm</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>6<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[sɛks]<b> </b><b> </b> ?<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>[seks]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">sex</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">seks</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>7<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ʂʉː]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>?<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>[ʂʉː]<b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">sjú</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">sjú</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>8<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ɔ.ɔtː]<b> </b><b> </b> ?<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>[ɔ.ɔtː]<b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic;">átta</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">átte</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b>9<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈniːə]<b> </b><b> </b> ?<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>[ˈniː.i]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">níu</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">níe</span><br /><b> </b> 10<b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>[ˈtʰiːə]<b> </b><b> </b> ?<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>[ˈtʰiː.i]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">tíu</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">tíe</span><br /><br /><b> </b>Note here that [2] lacks any references to the lower cardinal numbers, and that the numbers 9 and 10 in the Hammerdal dialect surprisingly aren't apocopated. One would have expect the same as in the Åre dialect. Also note that the Old Norse etymologies <span style="font-style: italic;">tvá</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">þrí</span><span style="font-style: italic;" title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">a</span>, in some dialects (and usually spelled in the literature) <span style="font-style: italic;">þrjá</span>, and <span style="font-style: italic;">fjóra</span> are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender#Masculine.2C_feminine.2C_and_neuter"><span style="font-weight: bold;">masculine</span></a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusative_case"><span style="font-weight: bold;">accusative</span></a>. This is in contrast with <span style="font-style: italic;">eitt</span> which is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender#Masculine.2C_feminine.2C_and_neuter"><span style="font-weight: bold;">neuter</span></a> (accusative?). Cardinal numbers greater than 4 weren't <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declension"><span style="font-weight: bold;">declined</span></a> in any way in Old Norse. The final note is that the reconstructed etymologies <span style="font-style: italic;">femm</span> [fɛmː] and <span style="font-style: italic;">sjú</span> [sɪ̯uː] are usually spelled <span style="font-style: italic;">fimm</span> [fɪmː] and <span style="font-style: italic;">sjau</span> [sɪ̯ɒ.ʊ] in the literature on Old Norse. The Old Jamtlandic dialect (like many other ON dialects) probably had <span style="font-style: italic;">femm</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">sjú</span>, which is the reason I use these as etymologies.<br /><br /><b> </b>To be continued...JPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8558997775425137061.post-74836224531270970942008-08-02T11:26:00.000-07:002008-08-02T12:49:17.940-07:00Concrete examplesI think it'd be a good idea to take a concrete example from Vidar Reinhammar's contribution in <span style="font-style: italic;">Jämten 1987</span> (see <a href="http://thejamtlandicproject.blogspot.com/2008/08/oscarssonreinhammar-debate.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">this</span></a> post). In the beginning of his contribution he discusses how <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Old Norse</span></a> <span style="font-style: italic;">u</span> [ʊ] today is pronounced in the Jamtlandic dialects. Supporting the idea a unified Jamtlandic is possible, I'll try to do my best to meet his examples. He writes (translated by me from Swedish to English, the <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">red</span> information being added by me for clarity):<br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b>"Old short <span style="font-style: italic;">u</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">(Old Norse [ʊ])</span> appears in the Jamtlandic<br /><b> </b><b> </b>dialects in most situations as <span style="font-style: italic;">u</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[ɵ]</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">å</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[ɔ]</span> or <span style="font-style: italic;">ô</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[ɞ]</span> (i.e., a<br /><b> </b><b> </b>sound between <span style="font-style: italic;">u</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[ɵ]</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">ö</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[</span><strong style="font-weight: normal; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" class="selflink"><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ɶ</span></strong><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">]</span>). Swedish <span style="font-style: italic;">hund</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[hɵnd]</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">('dog', ON </span><a style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusative_case"><span style="font-weight: bold;">acc.</span></a><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"> </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">hund</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">hʊnd</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">]</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">)</span> is pronounced in all of<br /><b> </b><b> </b>Jämtland <span style="font-style: italic;">hunn</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[hɵnː]</span>, but Swedish <span style="font-style: italic;">mun</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[mɵnː]<br /></span><b> </b><b> </b><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">('mouth', ON</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">acc. </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">munn</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"> [mʊnː])</span> is pronounced in<br /><b> </b><b> </b>Alanäs, Ström, Hammerdal and Gåxsjö <span style="font-style: italic;">mônn</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[mɞnː]</span>,<br /><b> </b><b> </b>in Lit, Häggenås, Laxsjö, Föllinge and Hotagen <span style="font-style: italic;">månn</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[mɔnː]</span> and in other Jamtlandic dialects <span style="font-style: italic;">munn</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[mɵnː]</span>.<br /><b> </b><b> </b>The Swedish rhyme word <span style="font-style: italic;">tunn</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[tʰɵnː] ('thin', ON <span style="font-style: italic;">þunn-</span><br /></span><b> </b><b> </b><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[θʊnː])</span> is pronounced <span style="font-style: italic;">tunn</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[tʰɵnː] </span>in Åre, Undersåker<br /><b> </b><b> </b>and Kall and the Norwegian Lid dialect in Frostviken,<br /><b> </b><b> </b>but <span style="font-style: italic;">tônn</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[tʰɞnː]</span> in Lower Frostviken, Alanäs, Ström,<br /><b> </b><b> </b>Hammerdal and Gåxsjö, Borgvattnet, Stugun, Ragunda,<br /><b> </b><b> </b>Håsjö, Hällesjö, Nyhem, Bräcke, Bodsjö, Revsund,<br /><b> </b><b> </b>Sundsjö (also <span style="font-style: italic;">tånn</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[tʰɔnː]</span>) and Berg, and in other<br /><b> </b><b> </b>Jamtlandic dialects as <span style="font-style: italic;">tånn</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[tʰɔnː]</span>. If we consider<br /><b> </b><b> </b>Swedish <span style="font-style: italic;">rund</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[ɾɵnd] ('round', ON </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">rund-</span> [rʊnd]) rhyming<br /><b> </b><b> </b>with <span style="font-style: italic;">hund</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[hɵnd]</span>, it has like <span style="font-style: italic;">tunn</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[tʰɵnː]</span> the<br /><b> </b><b> </b>pronounciations <span style="font-style: italic;">runn</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[ɾɵnː]</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">rônn</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[ɾɞnː]</span> and<span style="font-style: italic;"> rånn</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[ɾɔnː]</span>.<br /><b> </b><b> </b>Thus, there's no uniformity in how Swedish <span style="font-style: italic;">u</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[ɵ]</span> is<br /><b> </b><b> </b>pronounced in the rhyming words <span style="font-style: italic;">mun</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[mɵnː]</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">tunn</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[tʰɵnː]</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">hund</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[hɵnd]</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">rund</span> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">[ɾɵnd]</span>, respectively."<br /><br />Now, let's refute his argumentation. His argumentation is that except for how Swedish <span style="font-style: italic;">hund</span> is pronounced, the dialects disagree on the choice between the possible <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[ɵ], [</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">ɞ</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">] and [</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">ɔ</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">]. Therefore, there's no way to employ a unified spelling for the words in question. I guess he also argue that the geographical distribution of </span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[ɵ], [</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">ɞ</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">] and [</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">ɔ</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">] isn't even completely predictable when given a word whicb in Swedish (and Old Norse) has <span style="font-style: italic;">u</span>.</span></span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><b> </b>The<span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>first issue is easily refuted by using the etymological principle. One could simply spell the words <span style="font-style: italic;">húnn</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">munn</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">tunn</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">runn</span>. Note that short <span style="font-style: italic;">ú</span> is always [<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">ɵ</span>] no matter the dialect.<span> The second issue is more serious since given a dialect we don't know from the orthography only how </span><span style="font-style: italic;">munn</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">tunn</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">runn</span> are supposed to be pronounced<span>. This is solved by the following argumentation. It's obvious that there seem to be one geographical epicentre for each one of </span><span>the possibilities </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[ɵ], [</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">ɞ</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">] and [</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">ɔ</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">]</span></span><span>. In Western Jämtland one has an epicentre </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[ɵ],</span><span> in Northeastern Jämtland one for </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">ɞ</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">], and in Central Jämtland for </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> [</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">ɔ</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">]. The exact distributions for every word varies, but the epicentres are always fixed. This suggests that the words individually have dissipated into "foreign" areas through not so well-defined boundaries. This means that the only dialects we sacrifice when fixing the spellings </span></span><span style="font-style: italic;">munn</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">tunn</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">runn </span><span>are</span><span> the boundary ones. For Jamtlandic as a whole, we can safely employ unified spellings.</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><span>In "polished" Jamtlandic, one can choose a consistent way of pronouncing a short <span style="font-style: italic;">u</span>, one just chosse one of the epicentres.</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span><span><br /></span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span>To conclude,</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>we write <span style="font-style: italic;">húnn</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">munn</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">tunn</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">runn</span>.<br /><br />It's possible I'll return to other concrete examples which Reinhammar discusses in his contribution. I think they can all be solved in a similar way. In some cases one would probably have to defined what's the "best" (i.e., most genuine and/or distinctive) Jamtlandic.JPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8558997775425137061.post-23016533885686212192008-08-02T10:03:00.000-07:002008-08-02T11:31:25.043-07:00The Oscarsson—Reinhammar "debate" in 1987In the<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yearbook"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> yearbook</span></a> <a href="http://www.jamtli.com/7807.jamten.html"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Jämten 1987</span></a> (ed. <a href="http://sten.rentzhog.googlepages.com/home"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sten Rentzhog</span></a>) there was a theme, <span style="font-style: italic;">Te skriiv jämtska</span> ('To Write Jamtlandic'; p. 166—188) on Jamtlandic. In the theme there are eight contributors writing an article each, where two stand out (at least in the context of the principles of creating an orthography): The young enthusiast <a href="http://web.telia.com/%7Eu63501054/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bo Oscarsson</span></a> (1947-) who was (formally) an amateur in linguistics, and the veteran <a href="http://web.telia.com/%7Eu63501054/Reinhammar.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Vidar Reinhammar</span></a> (1925—2000) who was one of the most prominent dialectologists in Sweden.<br /><br /><b> </b>In Oscarsson's contribution, <span style="font-style: italic;">Jamskan och stavningen</span> ('Jamtlandic and the Spelling'), it's argued against a phonetic spelling. The contributor wants an orthography which is consistent with other <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Germanic_languages"><span style="font-weight: bold;">North Germanic</span></a> languages' orthographies, which aren't based on phonetic principles. That is, he desires an orthography within the boundaries of the North Germanic tradition. He argues against using innovative, special letters to denote special sounds. Though not explicitly stated, he probably also wants a unified orthography for jamtlandic.<br /><b> </b>It should be noted here that Oscarsson had been a follower of the phonetic principle, but that after reading the work by the early pioneer <a href="http://web.telia.com/%7Eu63501054/Acke.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Erik "Äcke" Olsson</span></a> (1860—1916) who went from a phonetic spelling to a semi-etymological one, he changed his mind in 1976.<br /><br /><b> </b>Reinhammar's contribution <span style="font-style: italic;">Jamska eller jämtmål?</span> ('"Jamska" or Jamtlandic Dialect?', referring whether there's a Jamtlandic language or merely a set of similar dialects), which follows immediately after Oscarsson's though probably not written as a direct response, argues against a unified Jamtlandic orthography. His main argument is that the dialects are too different and that the status of the dialects which are not compatible with the unified orthography will be lowered and eventually extinct, just like how Jamtlandic has been lowered in status against Swedish. Reinhammar wants a diversity of dialects for which the writers can use whatever orthography they want. A unified orthography will in the end, he argues, destroy the dialects.<br /><br /><b> </b>There's a fundamental difference between the two which explains why their views are different. This is how I interpret things. Oscarsson is a Jamtlandic nationalist, and it's the fate of the Jamtlandic language as a whole which is important. Reinhammar, being a dialectologist who doesn't acknowledge any Jamtlandic language, focuses on the dialects and argues that Jamtlandic is nothing more than the sum of the dialects labelled as Jamtlandic.<br /><b> </b>Boiling it all down, the "debate" is mainly one between a young, passionate patriot versus an old, cool scientist. They simple speak different languages, so to say. Their goals aren't the same, so their arguments become incompatible.<br /><br /><b> </b>Personally, I feel that I support Oscarsson, though one needs to take it cool. Passion with scientific support is the model I follow in my own work. Oscarsson had the ambition, but unfortunately he didn't have the ability to employ his etymological principles in all aspects of the work on creating an orthography, and he compromised to much. (See below in the aftermath paragraph.) Oscarsson's main contribution to Jamtlandic has been his enthusiasm, and it was this that led me into the field a decade ago. But needless to say, it's the work of Reinhammar (and other dialectologists) which have the greatest relevance to me today. I hardly use Oscarsson's dictionary anymore, and it has become evident to me that he's too involved in "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammon"><span style="font-weight: bold;">mammon</span></a>". (I have suggested that the dictionary should be freely available on the internet as a pdf document, but this isn't possible due to legal contracts and copyright issues with the publisher <a href="http://www.jengel.se/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jengel</span></a>.)<br /><br /><b> Aftermath.</b> In the mid 90's, the document <a href="http://www.mdh.se/ima/personal/lln01/jamtamot/dokument/000.dok.stavningsregler-for-jamska.html"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Vägledning för stavning av jamska</span></a> ('Guide to the Spelling of Jamtlandic') was made public as the outcome of the work of <span style="font-style: italic;">Akademien för jamska</span> ('Academy of Jamtlandic') consisting of Bo Oscarsson, Bodil Bergner and <a href="http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berta_Magnusson"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Berta Magnusson</span></a>. It's a semi-etymological orthography and semi-unified, i.e., it doesn't follow either of Oscarsson or Reinhammar in their Jämten 1987 contributions. I have been speaking with Oscarsson about this and he tells me that the reason is that he had to compromise. Interestingly, only Bo Oscarsson seems to follow the guide. Berta Magnusson, who is perhaps the most important writer in Jamtlandic who often publishes material for the local press, doesn't seem to follow her own guide today.<br /><b> </b>The current most important literary work with an orthography supposedly based on the guide is <a href="http://www.jengel.se/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage_new&product_id=23&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=35&vmcchk=1"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Nagur bibelteksta på jamska</span></a> ('Some Bible Texts in Jamtlandic'). Unfortunately, since the guide is merely a "guide", the various contributors to the translations don't follow the proposed spelling.JPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8558997775425137061.post-89172233695949719302008-07-30T13:12:00.000-07:002008-07-30T15:33:47.060-07:00The verb 'cut, hew'Together with the references in <a href="http://thejamtlandicproject.blogspot.com/2008/07/adverb-so.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">this</span></a> post I add a fourth one according to:<br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b>[1] <a href="http://www.ssp.nu/nyheter/gustavadolf/folklivsbygd/hammerdal.htm"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> Hammerdalsmålet</span>, Vidar Reinhammar</span></a><br /><b> </b><b> </b>[2]<b> </b><a href="http://www.bokfynd.nu/9163110806.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Klövsjöord</span>, Gösta Edlund et al</span></a><br /><b> </b><b> </b>[3]<b> </b><a href="http://web.telia.com/%7Eu63501054/Orlboka.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Orlboka - Ordbok över jamskan</span>, Bo Oscarsson</span></a><br /><b> </b><b> </b>[4] <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://libris.kb.se/bib/3104824"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Åremålet</span></a><a href="http://libris.kb.se/bib/3104824"><span style="font-weight: bold;">, Anna-Lena Forsåker</span></a><br /><br />Reference [4], a dictionary for the Åre dialect spoken in western Jämtland, will provide us with a third (and final?) basis element of the space of Jamtlandic dialects. (Sorry for the math jargon.)<br /><br />I would like to analyze the spelling for the Jamtlandic word for 'hew, cut'. As always, we take a look at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Old Norse</span></a> word in order to understand how to spell: <span style="font-style: italic;">h</span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode">ǫggva</span> [hɒɡːu̯ɑ]. Even East Norse dialects seem to have <span style="font-style: italic;">u</span>-umlaut for this word (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Swedish</span></a> has hugga rather than "<span style="font-style: italic;">hagga</span>", see <a href="http://runeberg.org/svetym/0332.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">this</span></a> site.) In Early Middle Jamtlandic (c.a 1350), the conjugation of the verb was in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_person"><span style="font-weight: bold;">first person</span></a> probably the following (<span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitive"><span style="font-weight: bold;">inf.</span></a></span><b>―</b><span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_tense"><span style="font-weight: bold;">pres.</span></a></span><b>―</b><span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_tense"><span style="font-weight: bold;">imp.</span></a></span><b>―</b><span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participle"><span style="font-weight: bold;">past part.</span></a></span>):<br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">h</span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode">agga</span><b>―</b><span style="font-style: italic;">h</span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode">agg</span><b>―</b><span style="font-style: italic;">hjó</span><span>/</span><span style="font-style: italic;">hjugg</span><b>―</b><span style="font-style: italic;">h</span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode">uggið<br /></span><b> </b><b> </b>[ hɑɡːɐ]<b>―</b>[hɑɡː]<b>―</b>[hɪ̯oː]/[hɪ̯ʊɡː]<b>―</b>[hʊɟːɪð]<br /><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode"><br /></span><span class="Unicode">(See <a href="http://www.northvegr.org/zoega/h225.php"><span style="font-weight: bold;">here</span></a> for how this may have evolved through analogisms etc.) In Hammerdal dialect (H), Klövsjö dialect (K) and Åre dialect (Å), the conjugation above has become</span> (ref. [1,2,4]:<span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode"><br /><br /></span><b> </b><b> </b><span class="Unicode"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">H</span>: [</span>hɔ.ɔɡː<span class="Unicode">]</span><b>―</b><span class="Unicode">[</span>hɔɡː<span class="Unicode">]</span><b>―</b><span class="Unicode">[</span>hɞɡː<span class="Unicode">]</span><b>―</b><span class="Unicode">[</span>hœdʒːə<span class="Unicode">]</span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode"><br /></span><b> </b><b> </b><span class="Unicode"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">K</span>: [</span>haʊɡːə<span class="Unicode">]</span><b>―</b><span class="Unicode">[</span>haʊɡː<span class="Unicode">]</span><b>―</b><span class="Unicode">[</span>hɔɡː<span class="Unicode">]</span><b>―</b><span class="Unicode">[</span>hɔɡːə<span class="Unicode">]</span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode"><br /></span><b> </b><b> </b><span class="Unicode"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Å</span>: </span><span class="Unicode">[</span>hɔ.ɔɡː<span class="Unicode">]</span><b>―</b><span class="Unicode">[</span>hɔɡː<span class="Unicode">]</span><b>―</b><span class="Unicode">[</span>hʊɡː<span class="Unicode">]</span><b>―</b><span class="Unicode">[</span>hʏɡːə<span class="Unicode">]</span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode"><br /><br /></span><span class="Unicode">This looks like a mess, but we'll try to sort things out. The pronounciations above are (naïvely) consistent with the spellings<br /><br /></span><b> </b><b> </b><span class="Unicode"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">H</span>: </span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode">hágge</span><b>―</b><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode">hágg</span><b>―</b><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode">hugg</span><b>―</b><span class="Unicode"><span style="font-style: italic;">h</span>(<span style="font-style: italic;">ø</span>/<span style="font-style: italic;">y</span>)<span style="font-style: italic;">ggjeð</span><br /></span><b> </b><b> </b><span class="Unicode"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">K</span>: </span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode">hágge</span><b>―</b><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode">hágg</span><b>―</b><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode">hugg</span><b>―</b><span class="Unicode"><span style="font-style: italic;">huggeð</span><br /></span><b> </b><b> </b><span class="Unicode"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Å</span>: </span><span class="Unicode"><span style="font-style: italic;">h</span>(<span style="font-style: italic;">á</span>/<span style="font-style: italic;">o</span>)<span style="font-style: italic;">gge</span></span><b>―</b><span class="Unicode"><span style="font-style: italic;">h</span>(<span style="font-style: italic;">á</span>/<span style="font-style: italic;">o</span>)<span style="font-style: italic;">gg</span></span><b>―</b><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode">hógg</span><b>―</b><span class="Unicode"><span style="font-style: italic;">hyggeð</span><br /><br />The first observation is that the alternative "<span style="font-style: italic;">hogg</span>e" (inf.) and "<span style="font-style: italic;">hogg</span>" (pres.) with "<span style="font-style: italic;">o</span>" instead of <span style="font-style: italic;">á</span> is not possible. We also observe that <span style="font-style: italic;">hagg-</span> </span>→ <span class="Unicode"><span style="font-style: italic;">hágg-</span> has occured through closing (and a less interesting rounding) of the vowel due to the <span style="font-style: italic;">gg</span> consonant which kind of resembles [w]. (</span><span class="Unicode">In the article<span style="font-style: italic;"> Overlange stavingar i nordisk</span> by <a href="http://www.hf.uib.no/i/Nordisk/ansatte/sandoy.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Helge Sandøy</span></a></span><span class="Unicode"> in </span> <span style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://aniara.bib.miun.se/F/-/?func=find-b&local_base=miun&find_code=WRD&request=nordiska%20dialektstudier"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Nordiska dialektstudier</span></a></span><span class="Unicode">, see <a href="http://thejamtlandicproject.blogspot.com/2008/07/nordiska-dialektstudier.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">this</span></a> earlier post, it's clearly proven that there can have been no lengthening of the vowel before the closing.)<br /><br />When it comes to the imperfect, we see that <span style="font-style: italic;">hugg</span> clearly comes from an older <span style="font-style: italic;">hjugg</span>. One probably doesn't have a dropped<span style="font-style: italic;"> j</span>, but rather an intermediate stage <span style="font-style: italic;">jugg </span>in which one has replaced<span style="font-style: italic;"> j</span> with <span style="font-style: italic;">h</span> through analogy with all other conjugations of the verb. The form <span style="font-style: italic;">hógg</span> in the Åre dialect requires special attention. It may have been developed from <span style="font-style: italic;">hjó</span> through first<span style="font-style: italic;"> jó</span>, then <span style="font-style: italic;">hógg</span> through analogy with all other conjugations (first replace <span style="font-style: italic;">j</span> with <span style="font-style: italic;">h</span>, then add <span style="font-style: italic;">-gg</span> in the end). The problem is that this probably isn't possible since one would have expected an intermediate form <span style="font-style: italic;">hjœ</span> [</span>hɪ̯øː<span class="Unicode">], which would have become "<span style="font-style: italic;">høgg</span>" after the analogical development. Hence, <span style="font-style: italic;">hógg</span> must be derived from <span style="font-style: italic;">hjugg</span>, and it's probably due to a closing phenomenon with <span style="font-style: italic;">hugg</span> </span>→ [hoɡː]<span class="Unicode"> as intermediate stages. Closing of [o] produces a desired [</span>ʊ<span class="Unicode">].<br /><br />Finally, let's look at the past participle. Genuine Jamtlandic must have a softening here, i.e., <span style="font-style: italic;">-ggjeð</span> rather than "<span style="font-style: italic;">-ggeð</span>". (I am surprised both Klövsjö dialect and Åre dialect lack softening in this case. probably an analogism with the other conjugations.) In the Hammerdal dialect, a short <span style="font-style: italic;">y</span> is often [ø] rather than an expected [</span>ʏ<span class="Unicode">], so we have to choose between <span style="font-style: italic;">hyggjeð</span> with <span style="font-style: italic;">i</span>-umlaut and <span style="font-style: italic;">huggje</span>ð without. I am pretty confident that Klövsjö dialect <span style="font-style: italic;">u</span> for this word is an analogism with the imperfect rather than an archaism. The <span style="font-style: italic;">i</span>-umlaut is employed in most Jamtlandic dialects in the past participle of strong verbs, so this is indeed a trademark of Jamtlandic. Thus, <span style="font-style: italic;">hyggjeð</span> is the correct spelling.<br /><br /></span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span class="Unicode">To conclude, the conjugation of the Jamtlandic word<br /></span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span class="Unicode">for 'cut, hew' is<br /><br /></span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode">hágge</span><b>―</b><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode">hágg</span><b>―</b><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode">hugg</span><b>―</b><span class="Unicode"><span style="font-style: italic;">h</span><span style="font-style: italic;">y</span><span style="font-style: italic;">ggjeð</span></span><br /><br />Interestingly, we observe that the Hammerdal dialect is, among the three dialects studied, the most consistent with the Jamtlandic orthography in this case. It feels like this often is the case; it's possible that the Hammerdal dialect spoken in northeastern Jämtland is one of the most archaic dialects spoken in Jämtland.JPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8558997775425137061.post-24882351134063028682008-07-30T12:48:00.000-07:002008-07-30T13:10:04.178-07:00Withdrawal<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">I withdraw the following statement made in <a href="http://thejamtlandicproject.blogspot.com/2008/07/symbols-and.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">an earlier post</span></a>:<br /><br /></span></span><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">Note though that due to the fact that we orthographically<br /></span></span><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">respect <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncope_%28phonetics%29"><span style="font-weight: bold;">syncopation</span></a> in words with acute accent, we don't<br /></span></span><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">need the shorthand hyphen in a word like <span style="font-style: italic;">hestn</span> [</span></span>hɛstn̩<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">]<br /></span></span><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">(acute accent) 'the horse', from ON <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusative"><span style="font-weight: bold;">acc.</span></a> <span style="font-style: italic;">hest·inn</span>, i.e.,<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></span></span><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-style: italic;">hest</span> + <span style="font-style: italic;">inn</span>. (Modern Jamtlandic indefinite form <span style="font-style: italic;">hest</span><br /></span></span><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">[</span></span>hɛst<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">] 'horse'.)<br /><br />I realized today that the definite form of <span style="font-style: italic;">mat</span> [</span></span>mɑːt<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">] 'food' is pronounced [</span></span>mɑːtn̩<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">], i.e., with a syncopation. According to the rule claimed above one would then spell "<span style="font-style: italic;">matn</span>". Now, this will interfer with e.g. <span style="font-style: italic;">vatn</span> [</span></span>ʋatːn̩<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">] 'water' (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Old Norse</span></a> <span style="font-style: italic;">vatn</span> [</span></span>wɑtn<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">]). A solution could be to spell "<span style="font-style: italic;">vattn</span>", but this will not be consistent with other aspects of my orthography. The simplest solution is to withdraw the rule stated above. That is, we will write <span style="font-style: italic;">hest·n</span> </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">[</span></span>hɛstn̩<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">].<br /><br /></span></span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">To conclude, we write </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-style: italic;">hest·n</span> </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">[</span></span>hɛstn̩<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">]</span></span><br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">'the horse',</span></span> <span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-style: italic;">mat·n</span> </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">[</span></span>mɑːtn̩<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">]</span></span> <span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">'the horse' etc.</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">,</span></span><br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">not "<span style="font-style: italic;">hestn</span>", "<span style="font-style: italic;">matn</span>" etc.<br /><br />Note that this doesn't affect spellings like <span style="font-style: italic;">knéð</span> [</span></span>kneː<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">] 'the knee' instead of the completely redundant "<span style="font-style: italic;">kné·ð</span>".<br /></span></span>JPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8558997775425137061.post-24082595670021665842008-07-29T13:18:00.000-07:002008-07-31T10:59:55.370-07:00Silent hI am pretty confident in that not many would oppose the not so controversial idea to accept the combination <span style="font-style: italic;">hj-</span> [j] even though the <span style="font-style: italic;">h</span> is silent. For example, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Old Norse</span></a> <span style="font-style: italic;">hjorð</span> [hɪ̯ɔrð] 'herd' has become Jamtlandic <span style="font-style: italic;">hjórð</span> [juːɽ] where the <span style="font-style: italic;">h-</span> is silent. This is how all <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_germanic"><span style="font-weight: bold;">North Germanic</span></a> languages work, except <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Icelandic</span></a> (pronounciation<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>[ç]), to some extent in<span style="font-weight: bold;"> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroese_language">Faroese</a></span> (both [j] and [tʃ] depending on word) and dialectally in "<a href="http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondska"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bondska</span></a>" (surpringly evolved into [he]).<br /><br />It's also pretty obvious that the Old Norse combinations <span style="font-style: italic;">hl-</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">hn-</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">hr- </span>(originally pronounced [xl], [xn] and [xr]), today preserved only in Icelandic (simplified to the assimilations [l̥], [n̥] and [r̥]), must be written <span style="font-style: italic;">l-</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">n-</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">r-</span> in Jamtlandic. For example, ON <span style="font-style: italic;">hlíta</span> [xliːtɑ] 'trust', <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusative_case"><span style="font-weight: bold;">acc.</span></a> <span style="font-style: italic;">hnefa</span> [xneβɑ] 'fist' and <span style="font-style: italic;">hrœra</span> [xrøːrɑ] 'move, stir' have become Jamtlandic <span style="font-style: italic;">líte</span> [liː.it], <span style="font-style: italic;">næva</span> [næʋɐ] and <span style="font-style: italic;">røre</span> [ɾøː.øɾ], respectively.<br /><br />The interesting case that is left is <span style="font-style: italic;">hv-</span>, in Old Norse pronounced [xw] (or, equivalently, [xu̯]). In Jamtlandic this first got simplified to [w̥], then to [w]. Note that at the stage when <span style="font-style: italic;">hv-</span> was pronounced [w], <span style="font-style: italic;">v-</span> was probably pronounced [ʋ] (in Old Norse [w], i.e., [u̯], without th [x] element). In fact, in 1791, <a href="http://www.martinbergman.se/pdaac036c.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Fale Burman</span></a> (1758-1809) wrote in his Jamtlandic dictionary project:<br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b>1. <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">gv</span>, för att uttrycka orden <span style="font-style: italic;">hvila</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">hvass</span> (acutus)<br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>etc., hvilkas första consonant har sama uttal,<br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>som <span style="font-style: italic;">wh</span> i Engelskan.<br /><br />This means that at least up until the early 19th century, hv- and v- were pronounced [w̥]/[w] and [ʋ], respectively. (I am not sure exactly how he thought English <span style="font-style: italic;">wh-</span> was pronounced, but definitely not as [ʋ]/[v] which is the important thing.)<br /><br />Apart from this modern historical fact, in northern Jämtland there's<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tr%C3%B8ndersk"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></a> a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tr%C3%B8ndersk"><span style="font-weight: bold;">North Trøndish</span></a> dialect where ON <span style="font-style: italic;">hv-</span> today is pronounced [kʋ]. (Perhaps not a very relevant fact, though.)<br /><br />The observations above and the fact that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokm%C3%A5l"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bokmål</span></a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Danish</span></a> have <span style="font-style: italic;">hv-</span> [ʋ], suggests that in Jamtlandic we should use <span style="font-style: italic;">hv-</span> for historical <span style="font-style: italic;">hv-</span>. For example, ON <span style="font-style: italic;">hvessa</span> [xwesːɑ] 'sharpen' is in Jamtlandic <span style="font-style: italic;">hvesse</span> [ʋɛ.ɛsː] (early 19th century: [w̥ɛ.ɛsː]/[wɛ.ɛsː]).<br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>We conclude that we employ the<br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>spelling <span style="font-style: italic;">hv-</span> for historical <span style="font-style: italic;">hv-</span>.<br /><br />An important exception to the rule above is the case when ON <span style="font-style: italic;">hv-</span> has turned into Jamtlandic [h], mainly in the ON combination <span style="font-style: italic;">hva</span>-. For example, ON <span style="font-style: italic;">hvat</span> [xwɑt] 'what' has become common Jamtlandic [hɔtː], so we spell it <span style="font-style: italic;">hut</span>. (Note the choice of the vowel <span style="font-style: italic;">u</span>, which happens to be the correct one to be consistent with all dialects.) This development probably suggests that between [xw] and [w̥] there was an intermediate stage [hw]/[hu̯]. This would give the following assumed development for ON<span style="font-style: italic;"> hvat</span> → J.<span style="font-style: italic;"> hut</span>:<br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">hvat</span> ~ [xwɑt] → [hu̯ɑt] → [hu̯ot] → [hʊt] → [hɔtː] ~ <span style="font-style: italic;">hut<br /><br /></span><span>We have assumed here that <span style="font-style: italic;">v</span> was lost in Middle Jamtlandic, i.e., Jamtlandic as spoken in the period 1350-1500.</span><span> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nota_bene"><span style="font-weight: bold;">NB</span></a>: Another common Jamtlandic word for 'what' is <span style="font-style: italic;">hvuð</span> [</span>ʋoː<span>]/[</span>ʋɔ<span>], probably a developed from an old unstressed version of <span style="font-style: italic;">hut</span>.)</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span>JPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8558997775425137061.post-15717434585085995972008-07-28T15:32:00.000-07:002008-07-28T16:34:51.234-07:00Softening and ·One thing we didn't mention in the last post is what we do with softening of <span style="font-style: italic;">g</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">k</span> in the case of the presence of a hyphen <span style="font-style: italic;">·</span>. As an example, take ON <span style="font-style: italic;">þak</span> 'roof; ceiling', which in the definite form was <span style="font-style: italic;">þak·it</span> 'the roof; the ceiling'. In Jamtlandic, ON <span style="font-style: italic;">þak·it</span> has evolved into the pronounciation [tʰɑːtʃə] (acute accent) with a softening of the <span style="font-style: italic;">k</span> due to the <span style="font-style: italic;">i</span>. We have three possibilities here:<br /><br /><b> </b><b> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">(1)</span></b> We spell <span style="font-style: italic;">tak·eð</span> using a rule that <span style="font-style: italic;">e</span> is always<br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>soft in all positions and situations;<br /><br /><b> </b><b> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">(2a)</span></b> We spell <span style="font-style: italic;">tak·jeð</span> using a rule that <span style="font-style: italic;">e</span> is not<br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>soft in an unstressed position, and that the <span style="font-style: italic;">j</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>is associated with <span style="font-style: italic;">e</span>;<br /><br /><b> </b><b> <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">(2b)</span></b> We spell <span style="font-style: italic;">takj·eð</span> using a rule that <span style="font-style: italic;">e</span> is not<br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>soft in an unstressed position, and that the <span style="font-style: italic;">j</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>is associated with <span style="font-style: italic;">k</span>.<br /><br />Of course, (1) means that <span style="font-style: italic;">ë</span> would be used when there's no softening involved (e.g., <span style="font-style: italic;">takkë</span> [ tʰakːə] (grave accent) 'thank', ON <span style="font-style: italic;">þakka</span>). When choosing between (2a) and (2b) we note that the most etymological choice is (2a) since the <span style="font-style: italic;">j</span> can be seen as being part of the etymological <span style="font-style: italic;">i </span>causing the softening. The problem is of course that the hyphen will separate <span style="font-style: italic;">k</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">j</span> in this case, but I think it possible to accept this "flaw". Note that both (2a) and (2b) means that <span style="font-style: italic;">ë</span> can't be used in an unstressed position. (Unlike<span style="font-style: italic;"> ï</span> which can only be used in an unstressed position, which we will discuss in a future post.)<br /><br />My personal choice between (1), (2a) and (2b) is (2a), i.e., <span style="font-style: italic;">tak·jeð</span>.<br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>We conclude that when using the hyphen <span style="font-style: italic;">·</span> when<br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>softening of <span style="font-style: italic;">g</span> or <span style="font-style: italic;">k</span> is involved, we write <span style="font-style: italic;">g·j</span> or <span style="font-style: italic;">k·j</span>,<br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>respectively.<br /><br />As examples, consider<br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">veg·jen</span> [ʋɛjːən] 'the road',<br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>from ON acc. <span style="font-style: italic;">veg·inn</span> [weɣɪnː];<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">serk·jen</span> [sæʂːən] 'the <a href="http://www.thule.vas.nu/kampanj/varlden/drakt/sark_hilma_thule.jpg"><span style="font-weight: bold;">sark</span></a>',<br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>from ON acc. <span style="font-style: italic;">serk·inn</span> [sɛrcɪnː];<b> </b>and<br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">bełk·jen</span> [bæʈʂən] 'the beam; the section',<br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>from ON acc.<span style="font-style: italic;"> balk·inn</span>.<br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">stokk·jen</span> [stɔtʃːən]/[statʃːən]/[stɞtʃːən] 'the log',<br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>from ON acc.<span style="font-style: italic;"> stokk·inn</span>.<br /><br />All examples have an acute accent. Note also that <span style="font-style: italic;">stokk</span> 'log' is pronounced [stakː] in Hammerdal and [stɞkː] in Klövsjö, both consistent with a vowel <span style="font-style: italic;">o</span> rather than <span style="font-style: italic;">u</span>. If the spelling would've been "<span style="font-style: italic;">stukk</span>" the most common pronounciation would still be [stɔkː], which would be the pronounciation in Klövsjö too, but [stɞkː] in Hammerdal. Though slightly off topic, I think it's a good idea to write down how short <span style="font-style: italic;">a</span>,<span style="font-style: italic;"> á</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">o</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">u</span> are pronounced in common Jamtlandic (C), Hammerdal dialect (H) and Klövsjö dialect (K):<br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">á</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">o</span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">u</span><br /><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">C</span><b> </b>[a]<b> </b><b> </b>[ɔ]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>[ɔ]<b> </b><b> </b>[ɔ]<br /><b> </b><b> </b><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">H</span><b> </b>[a]<b> </b><b> </b>[ɔ]<b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>[a]<b> </b><b> </b>[ɞ]<br /><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">K</span><b> </b>[a]<b> </b><b> </b>[aʊ]<b> </b><b> </b>[ɞ]<b> </b><b> </b>[ɔ]<br /><br />This is pretty complicated, and is due to how ON (or rather Old Jamtlandic to be specific) <span style="font-style: italic;">a</span> [ɑ],<span style="font-style: italic;"> á </span>[ɒː], <span style="font-style: italic;">o</span> [ɔ] and <span style="font-style: italic;">u </span>[ʊ] have evolved in different parts of Jämtland.JPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8558997775425137061.post-57818978267830798902008-07-28T14:25:00.001-07:002008-07-30T12:48:11.283-07:00The symbols · and ’<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">Apart from the ordinary letters of the alphabet, we propose the special symbols <span style="font-style: italic;">·</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">’</span>. The symbol <span style="font-style: italic;">· </span>denotes that a word has an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_accent#Pitch_accent_in_Norwegian_and_Swedish"><span style="font-weight: bold;">acute accent</span></a> rather than an expected<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_accent#Pitch_accent_in_Norwegian_and_Swedish"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> grave accent</span></a>, and </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-style: italic;">’ </span>denotes that a word has a grave accent rather than an expected acute accent. With "expected" we mean how the word's pronounciation would have been <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29"><span style="font-weight: bold;">a priori</span></a> perceived if the special symbols weren't present to specify the correct accent.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Historically</span></a>, <span style="font-style: italic;">·</span> means that we have an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Old Norse</span></a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_%28linguistics%29"><span style="font-weight: bold;">compound</span></a> of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllable"><span style="font-weight: bold;">monosyllabic</span></a> word (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun"><span style="font-weight: bold;">noun</span></a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronoun"><span style="font-weight: bold;">pronoun</span></a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjective"><span style="font-weight: bold;">adjective</span></a>) and a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffix"><span style="font-weight: bold;">suffixed</span></a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_article"><span style="font-weight: bold;">definite article</span></a>. Such words have an acute accent today, while other bi- (or multi-) syllabic words have a grave accent. As a concrete example, take ON <span style="font-style: italic;">hús</span> 'house', which by adding the definite article <span style="font-style: italic;">it</span> 'the' becomes <span style="font-style: italic;">húsit</span> 'the house' in the definite form. Of course, we could use a more <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28linguistics%29"><span style="font-weight: bold;">morphologically</span></a> etymological spelling <span style="font-style: italic;">hús·it</span> to account for the fact that <span style="font-style: italic;">-it</span> has been added. The reason we use <span style="font-style: italic;">·</span> here is that it's a common way of writing a shorthand <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphen"><span style="font-weight: bold;">hyphen</span></a>. A spelling </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-style: italic;">hús·it</span> would definitely have made sense to the speaker of Old Norse since the difference between acute and grave accents existed also back then. Thus, we'll write </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-style: italic;">hús·eð</span> [</span></span>hʉːsə<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">] (acute accent) in Jamtlandic. Had we written "<span style="font-style: italic;">húseð</span>" it'd meant [</span></span>hʉːsə<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">] (grave accent). Note though that due to the fact that we orthographically respect <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncope_%28phonetics%29"><span style="font-weight: bold;">syncopation</span></a> in words with acute accent, we don't need the shorthand hyphen in a word like <span style="font-style: italic;">hestn</span> [</span></span>hɛstn̩<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">] (acute accent) 'the horse', from ON <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusative"><span style="font-weight: bold;">acc.</span></a> <span style="font-style: italic;">hest·inn</span>, i.e., <span style="font-style: italic;">hest</span> + <span style="font-style: italic;">inn</span>. (Modern Jamtlandic indefinite form <span style="font-style: italic;">hest</span> [</span></span>hɛst<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">] 'horse'.) We also don't write out the shorthand hyphen when the word has a grave accent, though being a compound with a suffixed definite article. For example, </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-style: italic;">hestan</span> [</span></span>hɛstɐn<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">] (grave accent) 'the horses', from ON <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusative"><span style="font-weight: bold;">acc.</span></a> <span style="font-style: italic;">hesta·na</span>, i.e., <span style="font-style: italic;">hesta</span> + <span style="font-style: italic;">ina</span>. (Modern Jamtlandic indefinite form <span style="font-style: italic;">heste</span> [</span></span>hɛ.ɛst<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">] (grave accent) 'horses'.)<br /><br />The etymology for </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-style: italic;">’ </span></span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;"> is due to the syncopation of a vowel in a word with a grave accent. The reason we use an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe"><span style="font-weight: bold;">apostrophe</span></a> is of course due to the fact that it by tradition denotes a dropped letter. As an example, take ON <span style="font-style: italic;">lítinn</span> </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">(a variety of ON <span style="font-style: italic;">lítill</span>) </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">'little' which in Jamtlandic has become [</span></span>liːtn̩<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">] (grave accent) with a syncopation. Following the recipe, we write this <span style="font-style: italic;">lít’n</span>, where <span style="font-style: italic;">’</span> accounts for the syncopated <span style="font-style: italic;">i</span> indirectly preserved in the grave accent.<br /><br />The<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt_codes"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> alt codes</span></a> for the special symbols above are<br /><br /></span></span><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">alt+250 to produce <span style="font-style: italic;">· </span>(hyphen), and<br /></span></span><b> </b><b> </b><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">alt+0146 to produce <span style="font-style: italic;">’ </span>(apostrophe).<br /><br />Of course, if a Jamtlandic keyboard is ever produced, these would be easily accessible. (One can use a <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/KB_Sweden.svg"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Swedish physical keyboard</span></a> to <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/globaldev/tools/msklc.mspx"><span style="font-weight: bold;">create</span></a> one's own Jamtlandic keyboard layout. This isn't important at this early stage, but it's important to mention the possibility of customizing the keyboard layout such that the alphabet and special symbols of Jamtlandic can be accessible without employing the somewhat tedious alt codes.)<br /></span></span>JPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8558997775425137061.post-20327494991787612972008-07-28T11:30:00.000-07:002008-07-28T14:11:10.182-07:00The adverb 'so'According to the references<br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b>[1] <a href="http://www.ssp.nu/nyheter/gustavadolf/folklivsbygd/hammerdal.htm"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> Hammerdalsmålet</span>, Vidar Reinhammar</span></a><br /><b> </b><b> </b>[2]<b> </b><a href="http://www.bokfynd.nu/9163110806.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Klövsjöord</span>, Gösta Edlund et al</span></a><br /><b> </b><b> </b>[3]<b> </b><a href="http://web.telia.com/%7Eu63501054/Orlboka.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Orlboka - Ordbok över jamskan</span>, Bo Oscarsson</span></a><br /><br />the adverb 'so' is in the Hammerdal dialect [sɞː] (northeast), in the Klövsjö and Oviken dialects [sæː] (south), and in the Marieby dialect [sɑː] (central). Apart from these examples, a common pronounciation is [soː] as in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Swedish</span></a> <span style="font-style: italic;">så</span>.<br /><br />The most fundamental axiom for the creation of a Jamtlandic orthography is that one must find a unified spelling (using the alphabet defined earlier) for every word, at least those that can be traced back to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_norse"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Old Norse</span></a>. The adverb [sɞː]/[sæː]/[sɑː]/[soː] 'so' can be traced back to Old Norse. According to <a href="http://runeberg.org/svetym/1019.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Svensk etymologisk ordbok</span></a>, Old Norse had<span style="font-style: italic;"> svá </span>[swɒː], <span style="font-style: italic;">svo</span> [ swo] and <span style="font-style: italic;">so</span> [so] with successive degrees of phonological simplification. Note that Swedish <span style="font-style: italic;">så</span> comes from Late Old Swedish <span style="font-style: italic;">so</span> rather than "<span style="font-style: italic;">sá</span>", and <a href="http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/ordboksoek/ordbok.cgi?OPP=so&begge=S%F8k+i+begge+ordb%F8kene&ordbok=bokmaal&alfabet=n&renset=j"><span style="font-weight: bold;">(classical) Nynorsk</span></a> and <a href="http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=so+s%C3%ADggja&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta="><span style="font-weight: bold;">Faroese</span></a> have <span style="font-style: italic;">so</span>.<br /><br />Let's analyze the Jamtlandic instances above of 'so', i.e., looking for the (most relevant) etymology of the word.<br /><b> </b>Hammerdal dialect [sɞː] is only consistent with an etymology <span style="font-style: italic;">*su</span>. Page 20pp in [1] reads:<br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b>"Långt <span style="font-style: italic;">ô</span> i hdm svarar mot:<br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>a) gammalt kort <span style="font-style: italic;">u</span>.<b> </b>[...]<br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>b) gammalt kort <span style="font-style: italic;">a</span> framför ändelse med <span style="font-style: italic;">u</span>.<b> </b>[...]<br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>c) gammalt kort <span style="font-style: italic;">å</span> framför ändelse med <span style="font-style: italic;">u</span>.<b> </b>[...]"<br /><br />Note that <span style="font-style: italic;">ô</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">å</span> refer to [ɞ] and [o], respectively. Clearly, b) and c) are impossible, which only gives the option a), i.e., an etymology *<span style="font-style: italic;">su</span> as claimed.<br /><b> </b>The [sæː] in the Klövsjö dialect is trickier. In this dialect, according to [2], old short <span style="font-style: italic;">u</span> has consistently become [ɔ]/[oː], so the etymology *<span style="font-style: italic;">su</span> is a bit more difficult to derive. I think [sæː] is a secondary stressed version of an unstressed [sɐ], which in turn is a derounding (and slight fronting) of an unstressed [sɔ], with a stressed [soː] consistent with an etymology *<span style="font-style: italic;">su</span>.<br /><br />It's my firm belief that the Marieby dialect [sɑː] can be explain in a similar way as above.<br /><br />The very common [soː] is consistent with *<span style="font-style: italic;">su</span><span style="font-style: italic;"></span>.<br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>To conclude, the Jamtlandic spelling for the<br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>adverb 'so' is <span style="font-style: italic;">su</span><span style="font-style: italic;">.</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><span><br />Note that I am not 100% confident with <span style="font-style: italic;">su</span>. It's possible (though unlikely) we must go back to an older etymology <span style="font-style: italic;">svo</span> to base our spelling on<span style="font-weight: bold;">. </span>But until any new information on the matter is brought up to the surface, we'll stick with <span style="font-style: italic;">su</span>.</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span>JPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8558997775425137061.post-40775364183828382402008-07-27T15:16:00.000-07:002008-07-27T16:27:12.920-07:00AlphabetSince I already have a clear picture of the Jamtlandic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthography"><span style="font-weight: bold;">orthography</span></a>, I think I can claim the alphabet in this post. The claim is that the Jamtlandic alphabet is given by:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Minuscule</span>:<span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic;">a á b d ð e ë é f g h i ï í j k l ł<br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic;">m n o ó p r s t u ú v y ÿ ý æ ø</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Majuscule</span>:<span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic;">A Á B D Ð</span><b style="font-style: italic;"> </b><span style="font-style: italic;">E Ë É F G H I Ï Í J K L Ł<br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic;">M N O Ó P R S T U Ú V Y Ÿ Ý Æ Ø<br /></span><span><br />This alphabet is basically based on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_norse"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Old Norse</span></a> one.</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span><span>The</span><span> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_diacritic"><span style="font-weight: bold;">acute diacritic</span></a></span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span></span><span>( <span style="font-style: italic;">´</span> ) denotes vowels coming from old long vowels, denoted with an acute diacritic in Old Norse.</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><span>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umlaut_%28diacritic%29"><span style="font-weight: bold;">umlaut diacritic</span></a> ( <span style="font-style: italic;">¨</span> ) denotes vowels which do not cause an expected softening of</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> g </span><span>and</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> k</span><span>.</span><span> (The vowels <span style="font-style: italic;">e</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">i</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">y</span> cause softening, which the umlaut diacritic stops. This has to do with the vowel levelling phenomenon in Jamtlandic.)</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span><span>Like in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroese_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Faroese</span></a>, the letter <span style="font-style: italic;">ð</span> is silent. It is necessary in order to separate minimal pairs such as <span style="font-style: italic;">kaste</span> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitive"><span style="font-weight: bold;">inf.</span></a>,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_tense"><span style="font-weight: bold;">pres.</span></a>) vs <span style="font-style: italic;">kasteð </span>(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_tense"><span style="font-weight: bold;">imp.</span></a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participle"><span style="font-weight: bold;">past part.</span></a>) 'throw', in most Jamtlandic dialects pronounced [</span><span>k</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ʰa.ast</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"></span><span>] and [k</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ʰast</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ə</span><span>], respectively, but in some (archaic) dialects pronounced [</span><span>k</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ʰast</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ə</span><span>] for both. A unified orthography for all dialects requires a special symbol to denote the prevention of dropping the ending vowel<span style="font-style: italic;">.</span> The etymology for this prevention is the letter <span style="font-style: italic;">ð</span>, so we use it. The use of <span style="font-style: italic;">ð</span> is generalized, e.g. <span style="font-style: italic;">kné</span> 'knee' vs <span style="font-style: italic;">knéð</span> 'the knee', both pronounced [kne</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ː</span><span>].</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><span>We don't even need minimal pairs:</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic;">góð</span><span> [gu</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ː</span><span>] 'good', from Old Norse <span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">góð</span></span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>ʀ</i></span><span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span> [go</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ːð</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ɻ</span><span>].</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span><span>The letter </span><span><span style="font-style: italic;">ł</span> was discussed in an earlier post.</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span><span>The letter <span style="font-style: italic;">æ</span> doesn't come</span><span> from Old Norse <span style="font-style: italic;">æ</span> (which has coincided with <span style="font-style: italic;">é</span> in the alphabet proposed here)</span><span>, but is a product of the vowel levelling.</span><span> E.g., Old Norse <span style="font-style: italic;">spila</span> 'play' and <span style="font-style: italic;">tala</span> 'talk' have become Jamtlandic <span style="font-style: italic;">spæla</span> [<span style="font-size:100%;">spæ</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"></span></span><span style="font-size:100%;">l<strong style="font-weight: normal;" class="selflink"><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ɐ</span></strong></span><span>] and <span style="font-style: italic;">tæ</span></span><span style="font-style: italic;">ł</span><span><span style="font-style: italic;">a</span> [</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">tʰæ</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"></span><strong style="font-weight: normal;" class="selflink"><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"></span></strong></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"></span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong style="font-weight: normal;" class="selflink"></strong></span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ɽ</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong style="font-weight: normal;" class="selflink"><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ɐ</span></strong></span><span>].</span><span> (This is actually a concrete near-minimal pair in the motivation of the "thick"-<span style="font-style: italic;">l</span> symbol </span><span style="font-style: italic;">ł</span><span>.) </span><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span><span>In most cases, the letter <span style="font-style: italic;">ø</span>, [</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">øː</span><span>] (long) or [</span>œ<span>] (short), comes from Old Norse </span><span style="font-style: italic;">œ</span>/<span style="font-style: italic;">ǿ</span>, i.e., a long <span style="font-style: italic;">ø</span> [<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">øː</span>]. One rare exception is <span style="font-style: italic;">øks</span> 'axe', from Old Norse <span style="font-style: italic;">øx</span>. (Note that Old Norse <span style="font-style: italic;">ø</span> never comes from an <span style="font-style: italic;">i</span>-umlauted <span style="font-style: italic;">o</span>. In the case of <span style="font-style: italic;">øx</span>, <a href="http://runeberg.org/svetym/1277.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">the etymology is perhaps</span></a> *<span style="font-style: italic;">akwez</span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode">ī</span>.)<br /><br />I think this concludes a superficial discussion about the proposed alphabet. Of course, later I'll be more detailed.JPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8558997775425137061.post-56038350312162402042008-07-26T16:02:00.000-07:002008-07-26T16:39:48.559-07:00Broad vowelsThe <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Germanic_languages"><span style="font-weight: bold;">North Germanic</span></a> dialects can, in one very special sense, be divided into two groups: (1) "broad" dialects, and (2) "narrow" dialects. The broad dialects are in majority. So, in what sense are the dialects "broad" and "narrow"? With a dialect being "broad" we mean specifically that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Old Norse</span></a> short <span style="font-style: italic;">i</span> [i]/[<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ɪ</span>] and short <span style="font-style: italic;">y</span> [y]/[<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ʏ</span>] in front of a short (or none) consonant have become openened to something like [e] and [ø<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"></span>] (not bothering about length here), respectively.<br /><br />One example of a "broad" dialect is (the by icelanders mocked into near-extinction) northern <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Icelandic</span></a> where e.g. <span style="font-style: italic;">skip</span> 'ship' is pronounced something like [<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">s</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ce</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ː</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">b</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">̥</span>] instead of standard Icelandic [sc<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ɪ</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ːp</span>]. Standard <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Swedish</span></a> is yet another "broad" dialect, in this case one has <span style="font-style: italic;">skepp</span> [<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ɧ</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ɛp</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ː</span>]. (A quality [<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ɛ</span>] instead of [e] since the vowel has become short.)<br /><br />Jamtlandic is, just like the two examples above, a "broad" dialect. The sample word would be pronounced [<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ʂep</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ː</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"></span>] in the most genuine form of the dialect.<br /><br />The immediate question arises: How should we spell a broadened <span style="font-style: italic;">i</span>? I think the key observation that the northern Icelandic dialect, though being "broad" like Jamtlandic, has the rule that<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>the orthography's<span style="font-style: italic;"> i</span> is actually pronounced [e]. This could definitely be used in Jamtlandic too. The phoneme [i] in Jamtlandic can be spelled <span style="font-style: italic;">í</span>, i.e., just like the ON etymology. The letter <span style="font-style: italic;">e</span> should be used for the [<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ɛ</span>] sound, etymologically from ON <span style="font-style: italic;">e</span>. Needless to say, since <span style="font-style: italic;">y</span> is just a rounded<span style="font-style: italic;"> i</span>, we employ the same rule for <span style="font-style: italic;">y</span>, i.e., it's pronounced [ø].<br /><br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>To conclude, when in front of a single or<br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>none consonant, the letters <span style="font-style: italic;">i</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">y</span> denote<br /><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>the phonemes [e] and [ø], respectively.<b><br /></b><br />As an example for <span style="font-style: italic;">i</span>, we already have <span style="font-style: italic;">skip</span> [<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ʂepː</span>] 'ship'. For <span style="font-style: italic;">y</span>, take e.g. <span style="font-style: italic;">kyn</span> [<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">tʃø</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ː</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">n</span>] 'gender'<b>.<br /></b>JPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8558997775425137061.post-41842444269331826142008-07-25T16:10:00.000-07:002008-07-30T15:31:45.600-07:00Why a "thick"-l symbol?<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Norse"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Proto-Norse</span></a> had for sure two allophone <span style="font-style: italic;">l</span> sounds, a "back" <span style="font-style: italic;">l</span> (IPA [<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ɫ</span>]) and a "front" <span style="font-style: italic;">l</span> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet"><span style="font-weight: bold;">IPA</span></a> [l]) and a "back" <span style="font-style: italic;">l</span> (IPA [<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ɫ</span>]). The back <span style="font-style: italic;">l</span> was a short consonant (i.e., <span style="font-style: italic;">l</span>) and the front <span style="font-style: italic;">l</span> was long (i.e., <span style="font-style: italic;">ll</span>) in Proto-Norse. The cluster <span style="font-style: italic;">ld</span> was pronounced [ld] with a front <span style="font-style: italic;">l</span>, though.<br /><br />In Modern Jamtlandic the back <span style="font-style: italic;">l</span> has turned into a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroflex_flap"><span style="font-weight: bold;">retroflex flap</span></a> [<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ɽ</span>], let's call it a "thick" <span style="font-style: italic;">l</span>, except in the beginning of words and after front vowels where it has become [l], let's call this a "thin" <span style="font-style: italic;">l</span>. (There are a couple of further rules of exception; see §38 in <a href="http://www.mdh.se/ima/personal/lln01/jamtamot/dokument/dok.jamska/akademien_vagledning-for-stavning-av-jamska.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">this</span></a> document.) The front <span style="font-style: italic;">l</span> has stayed the same.<br /><br />The question is now, is there any use for a special symbol denoting the thick <span style="font-style: italic;">l</span>? The thin and the thick<span style="font-style: italic;"> l</span>'s are clearly not allophones anymore in Jamtlandic, and there are no 100% waterproof rules to tell whether an <span style="font-style: italic;">l</span> is thin or thick. A bisyllabic Old Norse word <span style="font-style: italic;">-</span><span style="font-style: italic;">ila</span> would have a thin <span style="font-style: italic;">l</span> in Modern Jamtlandic due to the front vowel <span style="font-style: italic;">i</span>, and a bisyllabic ON word <span style="font-style: italic;">-ala</span> would have a thick <span style="font-style: italic;">l</span> due to the fact that <span style="font-style: italic;">a</span> act as a back vowel. Due to vowel levelling, the words would only be separated by the quality of the <span style="font-style: italic;">l</span>. This suggests that the thick<span style="font-style: italic;"> l</span> needs its own symbol.<br /><br />What symbols should we use? Preferably a diacritic of<span style="font-style: italic;"> l</span>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Polish</span></a> <span style="font-style: italic;"> ł</span> seems to be the given canditate. In Modern Polish it denotes [w], but in older Polish (and still in archaic dialects) it was pronounced [<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ɫ</span>], i.e., the Old Norse pronounciation of what has become a thick <span style="font-style: italic;">l</span> in Modern Jamtlandic.<br /><br /> To conclude, the thick<span style="font-style: italic;"> l</span> in Jamtlandic is written <span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic;">ł</span><span>.<br /><br />Needless to say, in situations where one has assimilation of thick <span style="font-style: italic;">l</span> with another consonant giving a retroflex consonant, one still writes out </span><span style="font-style: italic;">ł</span><span> rather</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><span>than using <span style="font-style: italic;">r.</span></span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span></span><span>Hence, we write e.g.<span style="font-style: italic;"> gu</span></span><span style="font-style: italic;">łd</span> [g<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ɞ</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ɖ</span><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">ː</span>] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender#Masculine.2C_feminine.2C_and_neuter"><span style="font-weight: bold;">neut.</span></a> 'yellow', not something like "<span style="font-style: italic;">gårdd</span>" (see §38 in <a href="http://www.mdh.se/ima/personal/lln01/jamtamot/dokument/dok.jamska/akademien_vagledning-for-stavning-av-jamska.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">this</span></a> document again).JPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8558997775425137061.post-83992477576699150892008-07-21T11:49:00.000-07:002008-07-28T16:40:50.494-07:00Nordiska dialektstudierA couple of weeks ago I borrowed from the <a href="http://www.bib.miun.se/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">university library</span></a> the book <span style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://aniara.bib.miun.se/F/-/?func=find-b&local_base=miun&find_code=WRD&request=nordiska%20dialektstudier"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Nordiska dialektstudier</span></a> </span>(fifth Nordic dialect dialectology conference, 1994), editor Maj Reinhammar.<br /><br />The contribution <span style="font-style: italic;">Dialekterna och språkhistorien - Till frågan om en gamla au-diftongens utveckling i nordiska språk </span>by <a href="http://www.uu.se/findperson.php?uid=XX518"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Lennart Elmevik</span></a> discusses the <span style="font-style: italic;">au</span> diphthong and how it has developed in Nordic languages. He seems to claim that there are numerous examples of the development <span style="font-style: italic;">au </span>↦ <span style="font-style: italic;">ó</span> in Nordic dialects. This assumes the middle stages <span class="Unicode"><i>ǫu </i>and (later) </span><span class="Unicode"></span><span class="Unicode">long </span><span class="Unicode"><i>ǫ.<br /><br /></i>The relevance to Jamtlandic is that this gives us a hint on how we should spell the old <span style="font-style: italic;">au</span> diphthong. As is well-known, the semi-official spelling today given by </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.mdh.se/ima/personal/lln01/jamtamot/dokument/000.dok.stavningsregler-for-jamska.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Vägledning för stavning av jamska</span></a> assumes a spelling <span style="font-style: italic;">au</span>, probably based on how one spells in Norwegian. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Early Old Norse</span></a> used to have three separate diphthongs: <span style="font-style: italic;">ai</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">au</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">ey</span>. Due to a generalized, regressive <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_umlaut"><span style="font-weight: bold;">umlaut</span></a> process, <span style="font-style: italic;">ai</span> and<span style="font-style: italic;"> ey</span> (the<span style="font-style: italic;"> y</span> pronounced rounded) turned into<span style="font-style: italic;"> ei</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">øy</span><span>. In</span><span> Norwegian this is how</span><span> one spells: <span style="font-style: italic;">ei</span>, </span><span style="font-style: italic;">au</span><span> and </span><span style="font-style: italic;">øy</span><span>.</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span></span><span>A later umlaut is, following Elmevik, </span><span style="font-style: italic;">au </span><span>↦</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode">ǫu.</span><span class="Unicode"> This seems to have affected all Nordic dialects except <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutnish"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Gutnish</span></a> and (possibly) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Danish</span></a> and/or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroese_language"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Faroese</span></a>. The Jamtlandic pronounciation of the old <span style="font-style: italic;">au</span> diphtong is fully compatible with the umlauted </span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode">ǫu</span><span class="Unicode">. This suggests a spelling <span style="font-style: italic;">ou</span> (the letter<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span></span><span class="Unicode"><span style="font-style: italic;">ǫ</span> is not employed elswhere, so we use <span style="font-style: italic;">o</span> instead)</span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode">. </span><span class="Unicode">Note the consistency with <span style="font-style: italic;">øy</span>. Indeed, <span style="font-style: italic;">øy</span> is manifestively the <span style="font-style: italic;">i</span>-umlaut of <span style="font-style: italic;">ou</span>, just like how Early Old Norse <span style="font-style: italic;">ey</span> is manifestively the <span style="font-style: italic;">i</span>-umlaut of<span style="font-style: italic;"> au</span>.</span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="Unicode"><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:100%;" ><br /></span></span><div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;"><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:100%;" class="Unicode" >To conclude, the three (old) diphthongs<br /></span><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b><b> </b>of <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:100%;" class="Unicode" >Jamtlandic are <span style="font-style: italic;">ei</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">ou</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">øy</span>.</span><br /><br />Later I'll discuss other contributions in the book Nordiska dialektstudier. I'll use a couple of treatises on Jamtlandic dialects as aids, namely <a href="http://www.bokfynd.nu/9163110806.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Klövsjöord</span></a> by Gösta Edlund et al and <a href="http://www.ssp.nu/nyheter/gustavadolf/folklivsbygd/hammerdal.htm"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Hammerdalsmålet</span></a> by <a href="http://web.telia.com/%7Eu63501054/Reinhammar.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Vidar Reinhammar</span></a>. I have chosen the dialects spoken in <a href="http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kl%C3%B6vsj%C3%B6"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Klövsjö</span></a> in the south and <a href="http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammerdal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Hammerdal</span></a> in the northeast since they are, in a sense, mutually complementary with eachother and with the dialect spoken (traditionally) <a href="http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaplan"><span style="font-weight: bold;">where I grew up</span></a> in western/central Jämtland.<br /></div></div>JPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8558997775425137061.post-64249641941810906132008-07-19T13:50:00.000-07:002008-07-19T14:03:30.970-07:00Initiation of the blog<div style="text-align: left;">Hereby I initiate my blog, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Jamtlandic Project</span>, about the Jamtlandic language. The intention is to give the interested reader an idea of the progress of my work on constructing a written normal for a dialect, in this case the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Germanic_languages"><span style="font-weight: bold;">North Germanic</span></a> dialect of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamtlandic"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Jamtlandic</span></a> spoken in the province <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A4mtland"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jämtland</span></a> in northwestern <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sweden</span></a>.</div>JPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04345134069922856271noreply@blogger.com0