UniLang

Quasus wrote:
The New Introduction implies I should read the grammar reference first. Over my dead body.

It is generally recommended that you read through the grammar section first or that you are reading through it as you work through the Reader. As the first few readings have extensive footnotes glossing words and grammar points.

Personally I like the layout of the New Introduction.

What really grabbed my good-willing in New Introduction is that throughout the grammar section you have short sentences with translation which is very good for me as it helps me make direct connotations between the old Norse and English words.

Quasus wrote:The lessons on utexas seem too specific. Linguist-oriented, I’d say.

Yes, I think they really are.

Quasus wrote:
The New Introduction implies I should read the grammar reference first. Over my dead body.

Heh, why?
I personally can't learn grammar from strictly reading grammar books. I find it better to study it alongside with [not big] amount of vocabulary through texts. That's what made me use the introductory course to Old Icelandic, frankly said.

Æren wrote:I personally can't learn grammar from strictly reading grammar books. I find it better to study it alongside with [not big] amount of vocabulary through texts. That's what made me use the introductory course to Old Icelandic, frankly said.

Which I believe is the optimal way to use the New Introduction as well, it just so happens that the texts are in a separate book (just like the JACT Greek course).

Æren wrote:What really grabbed my good-willing in New Introduction is that throughout the grammar section you have short sentences with translation which is very good for me as it helps me make direct connotations between the old Norse and English words.

I like that as well. I especially like how they provide literal translations into English.

I haven't paid much attention to the second volume, yet. I still keep close to the Old Icelandic introduction.

Beside the learning books, how far have you gone with the language, fellow learners?

A few lessons from Chapman last year. Still I don’t lose hope.

I got interested in Old Norse when I found a Swedish metal band that has lyrics written in Old Norse, the composer said in an interview that he learned reading old law books and Bible texts, and he has some rune-books too

There are other bands that do the same thing, I think it's a good idea, these Old languages sound good on music.

Maybe in the near future I start to study Old Norse...

Could you share the name of that band?

Æren wrote:Could you share the name of that band?

Yes, the band is called Arckanum, here is a song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvpIOq58Jno

The lyrics:

ginnunga ginnunga
þjóðgapit standa opit
slefu streymir
sem ísavatn inn gelli
út kómu þursamegin
ór kjøltu þér þjónar aurgelmis
breiða allvísa hráka þitt
blóð hrímþursa kallaðir
eitráar kallaðir
svala á Hvergelmis
andi minn drukkit hafða
andi minn es kominn af svartvøtn
hvergelmis
Hvergelmir dreki
með høfuðum ellifu
frá Utgarði
ek kalla þik
dreki eitrhøggvandi
reistu nú
æn flæða heima
skilja eftir þig enginn
svartísgap frekr
hvámdu allt

How did this association appear that the Old Norse is sung as black metal rock?

You could also rap in Old Norse if you wanted to.

I kind of started learning Old Norse by coincidence.
I had to decide for a field of study. I knew I wanted to study but my plan back then was to do something I like for a year and get the requierements I needed to start studying to become a teacher. So I thought "ok, let's do something fun for a year". So I looked at the university's offers and I saw "Scandinavian Studies". Sounds like fun.
I always wanted to learn Danish so that's why I took this in the first place. I actually didn't really look at the curriculum since I only wanted to do it for a year. So I was a bit surprised when I saw Old Norse on my timetable. But I've been very fond of Latin at school so I thought "yeah, well, this might be fun".

That is why I started learning Old Norse. I noticed that Scandinavian Studies were EXACTLY what I wanted to study so I kept it and I decided not to become a teacher. And I am so happy about it. And Old Norse has always been one of my favourite courses at university.

Hi to you all!

Anyone still active here?

I'm currently learning Old Norse with the Introductory Course by Valfells/Cathey.
Getting along fairly well so far (it's not my first extinct language), but I might encounter some questions which my textbooks don't solve. For example, the Introductory Course doesn't have translations of the lecture texts, and as they grow more difficult I might not understand everything on my own.

Two questions I actually already have, and they are rather specific.

In lesson 6 it says
"En Ingólfr Anarson varð fyrstr til at nema land ok reisa bú".
('But Ingólfr Anarson became the first to settle land and built a household')
While I understand what it's supposed to mean I wonder about the purpose of "til" here. The lesson explains the use of "at" before infinitives, but it doesn't mention that a "til" can be added before it.
And in a sentence of another textbook I looked into before (called Viking Language), there is a similar construction (well, at least it contains at+inf.), but there is no "til": "Hann fór at brjóta haug Hrólfs konungs kraka." ('He went to break open the grave hill of king Hrólfr the Stake').

Does anyone have an idea what is the purpose of the "til" in the first example? Is it simply an alternative, or just a mistake in the book?

And again in lesson 6 it says
"Auðr in djúpúðga byggði Dali fyrir innan Breiðafjarðareyjar".
('Auðr the deep-minded built Dalir ('Valleys') in from Broad Firth Isles')
What is this "fyrir innan" supposed to mean? Literally it's "(be)for within", and according to vocabulary, it's a prepositional phrase meaning "in from", but I don't really understand what that should mean. Maybe it's because English isn't my native language, but it makes no sense to me.

Eril wrote:Hi to you all!

Anyone still active here?

I'm currently learning Old Norse with the Introductory Course by Valfells/Cathey.
Getting along fairly well so far (it's not my first extinct language), but I might encounter some questions which my textbooks don't solve. For example, the Introductory Course doesn't have translations of the lecture texts, and as they grow more difficult I might not understand everything on my own.

Two questions I actually already have, and they are rather specific.

In lesson 6 it says
"En Ingólfr Anarson varð fyrstr til at nema land ok reisa bú".
('But Ingólfr Anarson became the first to settle land and built a household')
While I understand what it's supposed to mean I wonder about the purpose of "til" here. The lesson explains the use of "at" before infinitives, but it doesn't mention that a "til" can be added before it.
And in a sentence of another textbook I looked into before (called Viking Language), there is a similar construction (well, at least it contains at+inf.), but there is no "til": "Hann fór at brjóta haug Hrólfs konungs kraka." ('He went to break open the grave hill of king Hrólfr the Stake').

Does anyone have an idea what is the purpose of the "til" in the first example? Is it simply an alternative, or just a mistake in the book?

And again in lesson 6 it says
"Auðr in djúpúðga byggði Dali fyrir innan Breiðafjarðareyjar".
('Auðr the deep-minded built Dalir ('Valleys') in from Broad Firth Isles')
What is this "fyrir innan" supposed to mean? Literally it's "(be)for within", and according to vocabulary, it's a prepositional phrase meaning "in from", but I don't really understand what that should mean. Maybe it's because English isn't my native language, but it makes no sense to me.

I would also like to know if there are any grammatical explanations of these constructions. In regards to "til at +verb" I can assure you with almost complete certainty that it's no mistake, as the construction is found in modern Swedish as well. Roughly translated in order to mimic the original sentence:

"Men Ingólfr Anarson blev den förste till att bosätta marken och bygga hus."

One would probably find clues as to why "til" is used here if one took a look at the descendants of Old Norse and the usage of the same construction in those languages. However, I here face the typical blindness of a native speaker — unable to grammatically dissect his own language. I have no good explanation of why and when this construction is used. Sorry...

In regards to "fyrir innan" I assume it has its grammatical cognate in the modern Swedish word "innanför" — literally "before for" meaning "within" or "inside".

It would be really nice to get a scholarly answer on this. Did you ever find any good explanations elsewhere?

@Pelje
I didn't expect to get a reply on this one day
I'm quite a bit further in my learning of Old Norse now; a friend of mine and me are about 3/4 through the New Introduction to Old Norse Reader.

I haven't encountered any detailed explanation for my first question, but the Reader's glossary at least translates both phrases.

"til at" is "in order to" (and therefore basically the same as "at")

and "fyrir innan" is "inside", as you said.

And about this, the grammar volume of the New Introduction to Old Norse says:

"Adverbs with the -an suffix combine with a preceding fyrir (cf. 3.7.1, 3.7.4) to form prepositional phrases indicating position relative to another (fixed) position".
and later also
"Apart from the above, there is a series of complex prepositions that trigger the accusative, made up of fyrir and a following adverb with the -an suffix (cf. 3.5.1). These indicate position relative to another (fixed) position, e.g. fyrir vestan hafit ‘west of the sea’, fyrir neðan kné ‘below the knee’ (further examples under 3.5.1). Sometimes the order fyrir + -an adverb may be reversed, but it should be noted that while, e.g., fyrir ofan always means ‘above’, ofan fyrir has two meanings: ‘above’ and ‘down past’ ‘down along’; in the latter sense it is not a complex preposition but a sequence of adverb + preposition (see 3.7.4, fyrir)."

Eril wrote:@Pelje
I didn't expect to get a reply on this one day
I'm quite a bit further in my learning of Old Norse now; a friend of mine and me are about 3/4 through the New Introduction to Old Norse Reader.

I haven't encountered any detailed explanation for my first question, but the Reader's glossary at least translates both phrases.

"til at" is "in order to" (and therefore basically the same as "at")

and "fyrir innan" is "inside", as you said.

And about this, the grammar volume of the New Introduction to Old Norse says:

"Adverbs with the -an suffix combine with a preceding fyrir (cf. 3.7.1, 3.7.4) to form prepositional phrases indicating position relative to another (fixed) position".
and later also
"Apart from the above, there is a series of complex prepositions that trigger the accusative, made up of fyrir and a following adverb with the -an suffix (cf. 3.5.1). These indicate position relative to another (fixed) position, e.g. fyrir vestan hafit ‘west of the sea’, fyrir neðan kné ‘below the knee’ (further examples under 3.5.1). Sometimes the order fyrir + -an adverb may be reversed, but it should be noted that while, e.g., fyrir ofan always means ‘above’, ofan fyrir has two meanings: ‘above’ and ‘down past’ ‘down along’; in the latter sense it is not a complex preposition but a sequence of adverb + preposition (see 3.7.4, fyrir)."

Good stuff! At least that clears it up a bit. And yeah, not many people seem to have great insight into the Old Norse language which really is a shame. I haven't begun yet but I plan to give it a go myself soon enough.

Hi, I want to have a tattoo done in Short twig runes. I don't speak Old Norse and I can't write in runes. So I wanted to ask one of you guys to translate a quote for me.

No gods,
or kings.
Only man.

I would really appriciate it if you could help me.

Thanks

Can anybody make comparisons of the three Old Norse dialects?