In the yearbook Jämten 1987 (ed. Sten Rentzhog) there was a theme, Te skriiv jämtska ('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 Bo Oscarsson (1947-) who was (formally) an amateur in linguistics, and the veteran Vidar Reinhammar (1925—2000) who was one of the most prominent dialectologists in Sweden.
In Oscarsson's contribution, Jamskan och stavningen ('Jamtlandic and the Spelling'), it's argued against a phonetic spelling. The contributor wants an orthography which is consistent with other North Germanic 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.
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 Erik "Äcke" Olsson (1860—1916) who went from a phonetic spelling to a semi-etymological one, he changed his mind in 1976.
Reinhammar's contribution Jamska eller jämtmål? ('"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.
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.
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.
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 "mammon". (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 Jengel.)
Aftermath. In the mid 90's, the document Vägledning för stavning av jamska ('Guide to the Spelling of Jamtlandic') was made public as the outcome of the work of Akademien för jamska ('Academy of Jamtlandic') consisting of Bo Oscarsson, Bodil Bergner and Berta Magnusson. 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.
The current most important literary work with an orthography supposedly based on the guide is Nagur bibelteksta på jamska ('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.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The verb 'cut, hew'
Together with the references in this post I add a fourth one according to:
[1] Hammerdalsmålet, Vidar Reinhammar
[2] Klövsjöord, Gösta Edlund et al
[3] Orlboka - Ordbok över jamskan, Bo Oscarsson
[4] Åremålet, Anna-Lena Forsåker
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.)
I would like to analyze the spelling for the Jamtlandic word for 'hew, cut'. As always, we take a look at the Old Norse word in order to understand how to spell: hǫggva [hɒɡːu̯ɑ]. Even East Norse dialects seem to have u-umlaut for this word (Swedish has hugga rather than "hagga", see this site.) In Early Middle Jamtlandic (c.a 1350), the conjugation of the verb was in first person probably the following (inf.―pres.―imp.―past part.):
hagga―hagg―hjó/hjugg―huggið
[ hɑɡːɐ]―[hɑɡː]―[hɪ̯oː]/[hɪ̯ʊɡː]―[hʊɟːɪð]
(See here 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 (ref. [1,2,4]:
H: [hɔ.ɔɡː]―[hɔɡː]―[hɞɡː]―[hœdʒːə]
K: [haʊɡːə]―[haʊɡː]―[hɔɡː]―[hɔɡːə]
Å: [hɔ.ɔɡː]―[hɔɡː]―[hʊɡː]―[hʏɡːə]
This looks like a mess, but we'll try to sort things out. The pronounciations above are (naïvely) consistent with the spellings
H: hágge―hágg―hugg―h(ø/y)ggjeð
K: hágge―hágg―hugg―huggeð
Å: h(á/o)gge―h(á/o)gg―hógg―hyggeð
The first observation is that the alternative "hogge" (inf.) and "hogg" (pres.) with "o" instead of á is not possible. We also observe that hagg- → hágg- has occured through closing (and a less interesting rounding) of the vowel due to the gg consonant which kind of resembles [w]. (In the article Overlange stavingar i nordisk by Helge Sandøy in Nordiska dialektstudier, see this earlier post, it's clearly proven that there can have been no lengthening of the vowel before the closing.)
When it comes to the imperfect, we see that hugg clearly comes from an older hjugg. One probably doesn't have a dropped j, but rather an intermediate stage jugg in which one has replaced j with h through analogy with all other conjugations of the verb. The form hógg in the Åre dialect requires special attention. It may have been developed from hjó through first jó, then hógg through analogy with all other conjugations (first replace j with h, then add -gg in the end). The problem is that this probably isn't possible since one would have expected an intermediate form hjœ [hɪ̯øː], which would have become "høgg" after the analogical development. Hence, hógg must be derived from hjugg, and it's probably due to a closing phenomenon with hugg → [hoɡː] as intermediate stages. Closing of [o] produces a desired [ʊ].
Finally, let's look at the past participle. Genuine Jamtlandic must have a softening here, i.e., -ggjeð rather than "-ggeð". (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 y is often [ø] rather than an expected [ʏ], so we have to choose between hyggjeð with i-umlaut and huggjeð without. I am pretty confident that Klövsjö dialect u for this word is an analogism with the imperfect rather than an archaism. The i-umlaut is employed in most Jamtlandic dialects in the past participle of strong verbs, so this is indeed a trademark of Jamtlandic. Thus, hyggjeð is the correct spelling.
To conclude, the conjugation of the Jamtlandic word
for 'cut, hew' is
hágge―hágg―hugg―hyggjeð
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.
[1] Hammerdalsmålet, Vidar Reinhammar
[2] Klövsjöord, Gösta Edlund et al
[3] Orlboka - Ordbok över jamskan, Bo Oscarsson
[4] Åremålet, Anna-Lena Forsåker
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.)
I would like to analyze the spelling for the Jamtlandic word for 'hew, cut'. As always, we take a look at the Old Norse word in order to understand how to spell: hǫggva [hɒɡːu̯ɑ]. Even East Norse dialects seem to have u-umlaut for this word (Swedish has hugga rather than "hagga", see this site.) In Early Middle Jamtlandic (c.a 1350), the conjugation of the verb was in first person probably the following (inf.―pres.―imp.―past part.):
hagga―hagg―hjó/hjugg―huggið
[ hɑɡːɐ]―[hɑɡː]―[hɪ̯oː]/[hɪ̯ʊɡː]―[hʊɟːɪð]
(See here 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 (ref. [1,2,4]:
H: [hɔ.ɔɡː]―[hɔɡː]―[hɞɡː]―[hœdʒːə]
K: [haʊɡːə]―[haʊɡː]―[hɔɡː]―[hɔɡːə]
Å: [hɔ.ɔɡː]―[hɔɡː]―[hʊɡː]―[hʏɡːə]
This looks like a mess, but we'll try to sort things out. The pronounciations above are (naïvely) consistent with the spellings
H: hágge―hágg―hugg―h(ø/y)ggjeð
K: hágge―hágg―hugg―huggeð
Å: h(á/o)gge―h(á/o)gg―hógg―hyggeð
The first observation is that the alternative "hogge" (inf.) and "hogg" (pres.) with "o" instead of á is not possible. We also observe that hagg- → hágg- has occured through closing (and a less interesting rounding) of the vowel due to the gg consonant which kind of resembles [w]. (In the article Overlange stavingar i nordisk by Helge Sandøy in Nordiska dialektstudier, see this earlier post, it's clearly proven that there can have been no lengthening of the vowel before the closing.)
When it comes to the imperfect, we see that hugg clearly comes from an older hjugg. One probably doesn't have a dropped j, but rather an intermediate stage jugg in which one has replaced j with h through analogy with all other conjugations of the verb. The form hógg in the Åre dialect requires special attention. It may have been developed from hjó through first jó, then hógg through analogy with all other conjugations (first replace j with h, then add -gg in the end). The problem is that this probably isn't possible since one would have expected an intermediate form hjœ [hɪ̯øː], which would have become "høgg" after the analogical development. Hence, hógg must be derived from hjugg, and it's probably due to a closing phenomenon with hugg → [hoɡː] as intermediate stages. Closing of [o] produces a desired [ʊ].
Finally, let's look at the past participle. Genuine Jamtlandic must have a softening here, i.e., -ggjeð rather than "-ggeð". (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 y is often [ø] rather than an expected [ʏ], so we have to choose between hyggjeð with i-umlaut and huggjeð without. I am pretty confident that Klövsjö dialect u for this word is an analogism with the imperfect rather than an archaism. The i-umlaut is employed in most Jamtlandic dialects in the past participle of strong verbs, so this is indeed a trademark of Jamtlandic. Thus, hyggjeð is the correct spelling.
To conclude, the conjugation of the Jamtlandic word
for 'cut, hew' is
hágge―hágg―hugg―hyggjeð
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.
Withdrawal
I withdraw the following statement made in an earlier post:
Note though that due to the fact that we orthographically
respect syncopation in words with acute accent, we don't
need the shorthand hyphen in a word like hestn [hɛstn̩]
(acute accent) 'the horse', from ON acc. hest·inn, i.e.,
hest + inn. (Modern Jamtlandic indefinite form hest
[hɛst] 'horse'.)
I realized today that the definite form of mat [mɑːt] 'food' is pronounced [mɑːtn̩], i.e., with a syncopation. According to the rule claimed above one would then spell "matn". Now, this will interfer with e.g. vatn [ʋatːn̩] 'water' (Old Norse vatn [wɑtn]). A solution could be to spell "vattn", 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 hest·n [hɛstn̩].
To conclude, we write hest·n [hɛstn̩]
'the horse', mat·n [mɑːtn̩] 'the horse' etc.,
not "hestn", "matn" etc.
Note that this doesn't affect spellings like knéð [kneː] 'the knee' instead of the completely redundant "kné·ð".
Note though that due to the fact that we orthographically
respect syncopation in words with acute accent, we don't
need the shorthand hyphen in a word like hestn [hɛstn̩]
(acute accent) 'the horse', from ON acc. hest·inn, i.e.,
hest + inn. (Modern Jamtlandic indefinite form hest
[hɛst] 'horse'.)
I realized today that the definite form of mat [mɑːt] 'food' is pronounced [mɑːtn̩], i.e., with a syncopation. According to the rule claimed above one would then spell "matn". Now, this will interfer with e.g. vatn [ʋatːn̩] 'water' (Old Norse vatn [wɑtn]). A solution could be to spell "vattn", 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 hest·n [hɛstn̩].
To conclude, we write hest·n [hɛstn̩]
'the horse', mat·n [mɑːtn̩] 'the horse' etc.,
not "hestn", "matn" etc.
Note that this doesn't affect spellings like knéð [kneː] 'the knee' instead of the completely redundant "kné·ð".
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Silent h
I am pretty confident in that not many would oppose the not so controversial idea to accept the combination hj- [j] even though the h is silent. For example, Old Norse hjorð [hɪ̯ɔrð] 'herd' has become Jamtlandic hjórð [juːɽ] where the h- is silent. This is how all North Germanic languages work, except Icelandic (pronounciation [ç]), to some extent in Faroese (both [j] and [tʃ] depending on word) and dialectally in "Bondska" (surpringly evolved into [he]).
It's also pretty obvious that the Old Norse combinations hl-, hn- and hr- (originally pronounced [xl], [xn] and [xr]), today preserved only in Icelandic (simplified to the assimilations [l̥], [n̥] and [r̥]), must be written l-, n- and r- in Jamtlandic. For example, ON hlíta [xliːtɑ] 'trust', acc. hnefa [xneβɑ] 'fist' and hrœra [xrøːrɑ] 'move, stir' have become Jamtlandic líte [liː.it], næva [næʋɐ] and røre [ɾøː.øɾ], respectively.
The interesting case that is left is hv-, 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 hv- was pronounced [w], v- was probably pronounced [ʋ] (in Old Norse [w], i.e., [u̯], without th [x] element). In fact, in 1791, Fale Burman (1758-1809) wrote in his Jamtlandic dictionary project:
1. gv, för att uttrycka orden hvila, hvass (acutus)
etc., hvilkas första consonant har sama uttal,
som wh i Engelskan.
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 wh- was pronounced, but definitely not as [ʋ]/[v] which is the important thing.)
Apart from this modern historical fact, in northern Jämtland there's a North Trøndish dialect where ON hv- today is pronounced [kʋ]. (Perhaps not a very relevant fact, though.)
The observations above and the fact that Bokmål and Danish have hv- [ʋ], suggests that in Jamtlandic we should use hv- for historical hv-. For example, ON hvessa [xwesːɑ] 'sharpen' is in Jamtlandic hvesse [ʋɛ.ɛsː] (early 19th century: [w̥ɛ.ɛsː]/[wɛ.ɛsː]).
We conclude that we employ the
spelling hv- for historical hv-.
An important exception to the rule above is the case when ON hv- has turned into Jamtlandic [h], mainly in the ON combination hva-. For example, ON hvat [xwɑt] 'what' has become common Jamtlandic [hɔtː], so we spell it hut. (Note the choice of the vowel u, 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 hvat → J. hut:
hvat ~ [xwɑt] → [hu̯ɑt] → [hu̯ot] → [hʊt] → [hɔtː] ~ hut
We have assumed here that v was lost in Middle Jamtlandic, i.e., Jamtlandic as spoken in the period 1350-1500. (NB: Another common Jamtlandic word for 'what' is hvuð [ʋoː]/[ʋɔ], probably a developed from an old unstressed version of hut.)
It's also pretty obvious that the Old Norse combinations hl-, hn- and hr- (originally pronounced [xl], [xn] and [xr]), today preserved only in Icelandic (simplified to the assimilations [l̥], [n̥] and [r̥]), must be written l-, n- and r- in Jamtlandic. For example, ON hlíta [xliːtɑ] 'trust', acc. hnefa [xneβɑ] 'fist' and hrœra [xrøːrɑ] 'move, stir' have become Jamtlandic líte [liː.it], næva [næʋɐ] and røre [ɾøː.øɾ], respectively.
The interesting case that is left is hv-, 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 hv- was pronounced [w], v- was probably pronounced [ʋ] (in Old Norse [w], i.e., [u̯], without th [x] element). In fact, in 1791, Fale Burman (1758-1809) wrote in his Jamtlandic dictionary project:
1. gv, för att uttrycka orden hvila, hvass (acutus)
etc., hvilkas första consonant har sama uttal,
som wh i Engelskan.
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 wh- was pronounced, but definitely not as [ʋ]/[v] which is the important thing.)
Apart from this modern historical fact, in northern Jämtland there's a North Trøndish dialect where ON hv- today is pronounced [kʋ]. (Perhaps not a very relevant fact, though.)
The observations above and the fact that Bokmål and Danish have hv- [ʋ], suggests that in Jamtlandic we should use hv- for historical hv-. For example, ON hvessa [xwesːɑ] 'sharpen' is in Jamtlandic hvesse [ʋɛ.ɛsː] (early 19th century: [w̥ɛ.ɛsː]/[wɛ.ɛsː]).
We conclude that we employ the
spelling hv- for historical hv-.
An important exception to the rule above is the case when ON hv- has turned into Jamtlandic [h], mainly in the ON combination hva-. For example, ON hvat [xwɑt] 'what' has become common Jamtlandic [hɔtː], so we spell it hut. (Note the choice of the vowel u, 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 hvat → J. hut:
hvat ~ [xwɑt] → [hu̯ɑt] → [hu̯ot] → [hʊt] → [hɔtː] ~ hut
We have assumed here that v was lost in Middle Jamtlandic, i.e., Jamtlandic as spoken in the period 1350-1500. (NB: Another common Jamtlandic word for 'what' is hvuð [ʋoː]/[ʋɔ], probably a developed from an old unstressed version of hut.)
Monday, July 28, 2008
Softening and ·
One thing we didn't mention in the last post is what we do with softening of g and k in the case of the presence of a hyphen ·. As an example, take ON þak 'roof; ceiling', which in the definite form was þak·it 'the roof; the ceiling'. In Jamtlandic, ON þak·it has evolved into the pronounciation [tʰɑːtʃə] (acute accent) with a softening of the k due to the i. We have three possibilities here:
(1) We spell tak·eð using a rule that e is always
soft in all positions and situations;
(2a) We spell tak·jeð using a rule that e is not
soft in an unstressed position, and that the j
is associated with e;
(2b) We spell takj·eð using a rule that e is not
soft in an unstressed position, and that the j
is associated with k.
Of course, (1) means that ë would be used when there's no softening involved (e.g., takkë [ tʰakːə] (grave accent) 'thank', ON þakka). When choosing between (2a) and (2b) we note that the most etymological choice is (2a) since the j can be seen as being part of the etymological i causing the softening. The problem is of course that the hyphen will separate k and j in this case, but I think it possible to accept this "flaw". Note that both (2a) and (2b) means that ë can't be used in an unstressed position. (Unlike ï which can only be used in an unstressed position, which we will discuss in a future post.)
My personal choice between (1), (2a) and (2b) is (2a), i.e., tak·jeð.
We conclude that when using the hyphen · when
softening of g or k is involved, we write g·j or k·j,
respectively.
As examples, consider
veg·jen [ʋɛjːən] 'the road',
from ON acc. veg·inn [weɣɪnː];
serk·jen [sæʂːən] 'the sark',
from ON acc. serk·inn [sɛrcɪnː]; and
bełk·jen [bæʈʂən] 'the beam; the section',
from ON acc. balk·inn.
stokk·jen [stɔtʃːən]/[statʃːən]/[stɞtʃːən] 'the log',
from ON acc. stokk·inn.
All examples have an acute accent. Note also that stokk 'log' is pronounced [stakː] in Hammerdal and [stɞkː] in Klövsjö, both consistent with a vowel o rather than u. If the spelling would've been "stukk" 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 a, á, o and u are pronounced in common Jamtlandic (C), Hammerdal dialect (H) and Klövsjö dialect (K):
a á o u
C [a] [ɔ] [ɔ] [ɔ]
H [a] [ɔ] [a] [ɞ]
K [a] [aʊ] [ɞ] [ɔ]
This is pretty complicated, and is due to how ON (or rather Old Jamtlandic to be specific) a [ɑ], á [ɒː], o [ɔ] and u [ʊ] have evolved in different parts of Jämtland.
(1) We spell tak·eð using a rule that e is always
soft in all positions and situations;
(2a) We spell tak·jeð using a rule that e is not
soft in an unstressed position, and that the j
is associated with e;
(2b) We spell takj·eð using a rule that e is not
soft in an unstressed position, and that the j
is associated with k.
Of course, (1) means that ë would be used when there's no softening involved (e.g., takkë [ tʰakːə] (grave accent) 'thank', ON þakka). When choosing between (2a) and (2b) we note that the most etymological choice is (2a) since the j can be seen as being part of the etymological i causing the softening. The problem is of course that the hyphen will separate k and j in this case, but I think it possible to accept this "flaw". Note that both (2a) and (2b) means that ë can't be used in an unstressed position. (Unlike ï which can only be used in an unstressed position, which we will discuss in a future post.)
My personal choice between (1), (2a) and (2b) is (2a), i.e., tak·jeð.
We conclude that when using the hyphen · when
softening of g or k is involved, we write g·j or k·j,
respectively.
As examples, consider
veg·jen [ʋɛjːən] 'the road',
from ON acc. veg·inn [weɣɪnː];
serk·jen [sæʂːən] 'the sark',
from ON acc. serk·inn [sɛrcɪnː]; and
bełk·jen [bæʈʂən] 'the beam; the section',
from ON acc. balk·inn.
stokk·jen [stɔtʃːən]/[statʃːən]/[stɞtʃːən] 'the log',
from ON acc. stokk·inn.
All examples have an acute accent. Note also that stokk 'log' is pronounced [stakː] in Hammerdal and [stɞkː] in Klövsjö, both consistent with a vowel o rather than u. If the spelling would've been "stukk" 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 a, á, o and u are pronounced in common Jamtlandic (C), Hammerdal dialect (H) and Klövsjö dialect (K):
a á o u
C [a] [ɔ] [ɔ] [ɔ]
H [a] [ɔ] [a] [ɞ]
K [a] [aʊ] [ɞ] [ɔ]
This is pretty complicated, and is due to how ON (or rather Old Jamtlandic to be specific) a [ɑ], á [ɒː], o [ɔ] and u [ʊ] have evolved in different parts of Jämtland.
The symbols · and ’
Apart from the ordinary letters of the alphabet, we propose the special symbols · and ’. The symbol · denotes that a word has an acute accent rather than an expected grave accent, and ’ 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 priori perceived if the special symbols weren't present to specify the correct accent.
Historically, · means that we have an Old Norse compound of a monosyllabic word (noun, pronoun or adjective) and a suffixed definite article. Such words have an acute accent today, while other bi- (or multi-) syllabic words have a grave accent. As a concrete example, take ON hús 'house', which by adding the definite article it 'the' becomes húsit 'the house' in the definite form. Of course, we could use a more morphologically etymological spelling hús·it to account for the fact that -it has been added. The reason we use · here is that it's a common way of writing a shorthand hyphen. A spelling hús·it 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 hús·eð [hʉːsə] (acute accent) in Jamtlandic. Had we written "húseð" it'd meant [hʉːsə] (grave accent). Note though that due to the fact that we orthographically respect syncopation in words with acute accent, we don't need the shorthand hyphen in a word like hestn [hɛstn̩] (acute accent) 'the horse', from ON acc. hest·inn, i.e., hest + inn. (Modern Jamtlandic indefinite form hest [hɛst] '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, hestan [hɛstɐn] (grave accent) 'the horses', from ON acc. hesta·na, i.e., hesta + ina. (Modern Jamtlandic indefinite form heste [hɛ.ɛst] (grave accent) 'horses'.)
The etymology for ’ is due to the syncopation of a vowel in a word with a grave accent. The reason we use an apostrophe is of course due to the fact that it by tradition denotes a dropped letter. As an example, take ON lítinn (a variety of ON lítill) 'little' which in Jamtlandic has become [liːtn̩] (grave accent) with a syncopation. Following the recipe, we write this lít’n, where ’ accounts for the syncopated i indirectly preserved in the grave accent.
The alt codes for the special symbols above are
alt+250 to produce · (hyphen), and
alt+0146 to produce ’ (apostrophe).
Of course, if a Jamtlandic keyboard is ever produced, these would be easily accessible. (One can use a Swedish physical keyboard to create 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.)
Historically, · means that we have an Old Norse compound of a monosyllabic word (noun, pronoun or adjective) and a suffixed definite article. Such words have an acute accent today, while other bi- (or multi-) syllabic words have a grave accent. As a concrete example, take ON hús 'house', which by adding the definite article it 'the' becomes húsit 'the house' in the definite form. Of course, we could use a more morphologically etymological spelling hús·it to account for the fact that -it has been added. The reason we use · here is that it's a common way of writing a shorthand hyphen. A spelling hús·it 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 hús·eð [hʉːsə] (acute accent) in Jamtlandic. Had we written "húseð" it'd meant [hʉːsə] (grave accent). Note though that due to the fact that we orthographically respect syncopation in words with acute accent, we don't need the shorthand hyphen in a word like hestn [hɛstn̩] (acute accent) 'the horse', from ON acc. hest·inn, i.e., hest + inn. (Modern Jamtlandic indefinite form hest [hɛst] '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, hestan [hɛstɐn] (grave accent) 'the horses', from ON acc. hesta·na, i.e., hesta + ina. (Modern Jamtlandic indefinite form heste [hɛ.ɛst] (grave accent) 'horses'.)
The etymology for ’ is due to the syncopation of a vowel in a word with a grave accent. The reason we use an apostrophe is of course due to the fact that it by tradition denotes a dropped letter. As an example, take ON lítinn (a variety of ON lítill) 'little' which in Jamtlandic has become [liːtn̩] (grave accent) with a syncopation. Following the recipe, we write this lít’n, where ’ accounts for the syncopated i indirectly preserved in the grave accent.
The alt codes for the special symbols above are
alt+250 to produce · (hyphen), and
alt+0146 to produce ’ (apostrophe).
Of course, if a Jamtlandic keyboard is ever produced, these would be easily accessible. (One can use a Swedish physical keyboard to create 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.)
The adverb 'so'
According to the references
[1] Hammerdalsmålet, Vidar Reinhammar
[2] Klövsjöord, Gösta Edlund et al
[3] Orlboka - Ordbok över jamskan, Bo Oscarsson
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 Swedish så.
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 Old Norse. The adverb [sɞː]/[sæː]/[sɑː]/[soː] 'so' can be traced back to Old Norse. According to Svensk etymologisk ordbok, Old Norse had svá [swɒː], svo [ swo] and so [so] with successive degrees of phonological simplification. Note that Swedish så comes from Late Old Swedish so rather than "sá", and (classical) Nynorsk and Faroese have so.
Let's analyze the Jamtlandic instances above of 'so', i.e., looking for the (most relevant) etymology of the word.
Hammerdal dialect [sɞː] is only consistent with an etymology *su. Page 20pp in [1] reads:
"Långt ô i hdm svarar mot:
a) gammalt kort u. [...]
b) gammalt kort a framför ändelse med u. [...]
c) gammalt kort å framför ändelse med u. [...]"
Note that ô and å refer to [ɞ] and [o], respectively. Clearly, b) and c) are impossible, which only gives the option a), i.e., an etymology *su as claimed.
The [sæː] in the Klövsjö dialect is trickier. In this dialect, according to [2], old short u has consistently become [ɔ]/[oː], so the etymology *su 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 *su.
It's my firm belief that the Marieby dialect [sɑː] can be explain in a similar way as above.
The very common [soː] is consistent with *su.
To conclude, the Jamtlandic spelling for the
adverb 'so' is su.
Note that I am not 100% confident with su. It's possible (though unlikely) we must go back to an older etymology svo to base our spelling on. But until any new information on the matter is brought up to the surface, we'll stick with su.
[1] Hammerdalsmålet, Vidar Reinhammar
[2] Klövsjöord, Gösta Edlund et al
[3] Orlboka - Ordbok över jamskan, Bo Oscarsson
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 Swedish så.
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 Old Norse. The adverb [sɞː]/[sæː]/[sɑː]/[soː] 'so' can be traced back to Old Norse. According to Svensk etymologisk ordbok, Old Norse had svá [swɒː], svo [ swo] and so [so] with successive degrees of phonological simplification. Note that Swedish så comes from Late Old Swedish so rather than "sá", and (classical) Nynorsk and Faroese have so.
Let's analyze the Jamtlandic instances above of 'so', i.e., looking for the (most relevant) etymology of the word.
Hammerdal dialect [sɞː] is only consistent with an etymology *su. Page 20pp in [1] reads:
"Långt ô i hdm svarar mot:
a) gammalt kort u. [...]
b) gammalt kort a framför ändelse med u. [...]
c) gammalt kort å framför ändelse med u. [...]"
Note that ô and å refer to [ɞ] and [o], respectively. Clearly, b) and c) are impossible, which only gives the option a), i.e., an etymology *su as claimed.
The [sæː] in the Klövsjö dialect is trickier. In this dialect, according to [2], old short u has consistently become [ɔ]/[oː], so the etymology *su 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 *su.
It's my firm belief that the Marieby dialect [sɑː] can be explain in a similar way as above.
The very common [soː] is consistent with *su.
To conclude, the Jamtlandic spelling for the
adverb 'so' is su.
Note that I am not 100% confident with su. It's possible (though unlikely) we must go back to an older etymology svo to base our spelling on. But until any new information on the matter is brought up to the surface, we'll stick with su.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)