Talk:Proto-Norse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Proto-Norse falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome! |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
Contents |
[edit] distinction?
the thing i'm unclear on here is:
is there a distinction between proto-norse and proto-north germanic?
- Well, no there isn't. I'll add that name.--Wiglaf 01:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Though there is some (small) differences between P-N an Proto-Germanic --Asdfgl 22:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] fleshing out article
I will flesh out this article some more once I've managed to get som sleep... --Asdfgl 22:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] norse languages
from what i undestand, there are a group of languages called norse languages, and 2 groups within norse languages known as west norse languages and east norse languages. i'm not sure whether or not all north germanic languages are norse languages or not.
- Pretty correct! North Germanic equals Norse - the term Norse seems to be treated approximately as the "Conscandinavian" (I invented that word now - don't use it as a term!) word Nordisk when referring to c:a 700-1100 AD. The common opinion of Nordic linguistics is that, there are two Norse languages in the linguist sense, East Nordic, and West Nordic. I was going to write an extensive explanation here, but it may suffice that I claim that this family tree of the Nordic Languages is what I've been taught and expericenced - with the exception: the distinction between the Sveamål and the Götamål has disolved so much that practically they're just pronunciation variants of the same dialect. Also the status of Gutnish in relation to Swedish is disputed - my personal non-professional opinion is that Gutnish is a third group beside East and West Norse. User:Rursus 09:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 |
This user is a East Geat of the Swedish people. |
i'm under the impression that germanic and nordic are pretty much synonymous. Gringo300 23:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- No. You must have meant that "north germanic and nordic" are pretty much synonymous, which is perfectly true. User:Rursus 09:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] two different names for the same thing
- Proto-Norse and Proto-North Germanic are just two different names for the same thing. On the other hand, Proto-Norse is not Proto-Germanic, as such is the protolanguage for all the Germanic languages, not just the North Germanic languages -- 15:42, 2 July 2005 (CDT)
- On the other hand, early Proto-Norse was very similar to Proto-Germanic.--Wiglaf 2 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)
[edit] Phonology
So, were /w/ and /j/ also phonemes of the language? They show up, or at least <w> and <j> do, in the inscriptions they display. Are these realized differently than one might expect? In any case, the phonology section is apparently incomplete. -Branddobbe 15:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- And on a different note, is <h> really supposed to be IPA [χ] (voiceless uvular fricativ), or is this a leftover from other transcription systems that use chi for IPA [x] (voiceless velar fricativ)? --Tropylium 14:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- To start with the first question first. Yes, the phonology section is incomplete. I never got around cleaning that one up properly. So /w/ and /j/ should be added. Or rather, the /u/ and /i/ should be classified as semivowels.
-
- As for the second question. Yes, /h/ should be IPA [x].
- -Asdfgl 16:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is Proto-Norse a legitimate classification?
The term has traditionally been used to refer to the language of the early runic inscriptions, but it fails on two counts. First, a protolanguage is defined as a reconstruction from attested linguistic data. The language of the runic inscriptions, however, comes from actual attested data (obviously), and so is not a reconstruction and therefore not a protolangauge. The second failure of the term proto-Norse is that the language of the early runic inscriptions could just as easily have been ancestral to West Germanic languages as to North Germanic languages.
It would be better to call the language of the early runic inscriptions Northwest Germanic and the language of the later runic inscriptions of Scandinavia and Scandinavian settlements Old Norse. (Note that good evidence in support of this suggestion can be found in the sources given in the article for Northwest Germanic.)
Consider the problems caused by the classification Proto-Norse that are evident in the article itself:
The differences between attested Proto-Norse and unattested Proto-Germanic are small. The difference in name is mostly a matter of convention. Inscriptions found in Scandinavia are considered to be in P-N; inscriptions found elsewhere that are old enough are considered to be Proto-Germanic. For example, the name inscribed on the Negau helmet is Proto-Germanic though it would be the same in Proto-Norse. One distinctive difference between the two is the P-N lowering of P-G ē to ā; this is easiest seen in the pair mēna (Gothic) and máni (Old Norse) (English moon).
That's from the article as it stands tonight while I write this. It claims that the difference between PN and PGmc is just a matter of convention rather than an indication of actual difference. The only real difference offered between PGmc and PN is the lowering of ē to ā; but this change occurred not only in North Germanic, but also in West Germanic (māne in MDutch, māno in OSaxon and OHG). Rather than being a distinction between PGmc and PN, this lowering is a distinction between PGmc and NWGmc.
It seems silly to perpetuate a flawed distinction like Proto-Norse just for the sake of convention. We could just as easily call it something more accurate (like Northwest Germanic or Early Runic) and redirect searches for Proto-Norse to the more accurately titled page — we could even have a note in the page that the language has commonly (though wrongly) been called Proto-Norse in the past. 128.187.0.164 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Coming up with new definitions of languages is not within the scope of wikipedia. It would be original research. If Proto-Norse is the term which is generally used among scholars, and in general discourse, than that is what we should use. --Barend 11:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agreed 97.531%, this is the well chosen policy of a dictionary, and it should classify things as the majority of experts are used to, so that ordinary hominoids like me, may learn what our experts have researched. But, and this is a major but, Mr User:128.187.0.164 have a point - even science is sometimes plagued by prejudices and badly grounded opinions that must be challenged. This should of course be outside the scope of dictionaries, except the Criticism sections, which are very important IMHO to get scientific accuracy and a balanced view. They should be considerably shorter than the facts, but they must accurately and neutrally (NPOVly) reflect major criticisms. This is important in order to get Wikipedia converge towards truth at the same speed as science converges towards truth. User:Rursus 09:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kragehul absurdity
Just want to criticize the interpretation of the Kragehul spear: it's not mine, but taken from "Runristningar - Från spjutspetsen i Stabu till Anna i Älvdalen - FABEL I KLASSIKER", ISBN 91-7842-1750. As not entirely unusual, a part of the translation is ridiculous: gagaga ginuga == ga-ga-ga, super-ga. Very informative, or: when ideas are lacking resort to some underterminable magic we cannot reconstruct. I instead claim gagaga ginuga == gagangan, ginunga, some n:s forgotten or customary omitted. gagangan, ginunga == walked far. I.e.: I the eril of Asgisl, (have) walked far, .... This is original "research" however. If you find a doctor who interprets unlike what's in the current text, then the text can be rewritten - otherwise, I'm not a linguist. Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 16:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
