Jamtlandic (Jamsk'/Jamske)

Any language which does not have a specific forum can have a thread made for it here.
User avatar
Hunef
Posts: 9532
Joined: 2004-01-21, 20:55
Gender: male
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Re: Jamtlandic Grammar

Postby Hunef » 2006-05-01, 18:00

Priscian wrote:I would like to suggest that this new topic deals only with Jamtlandic language issues, i.e. morphology, orthographic conventions, phonology, and semantics.


Agreed! :wink:
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan

User avatar
Hunef
Posts: 9532
Joined: 2004-01-21, 20:55
Gender: male
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Postby Hunef » 2006-05-01, 18:01

Priscian wrote:Jens!

This new Jamtlandic forum is fantastic! I apologize for having been gone for a few days ... for a visit to Thailand.

Myriad of grammatical questions are upcoming (LAUGH).


I really hope you'll come up with some intriguing questions!
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan

User avatar
Hunef
Posts: 9532
Joined: 2004-01-21, 20:55
Gender: male
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Postby Hunef » 2006-05-01, 18:06

Priscian wrote:I congratulate you on the new forum for a great people and their language.

Can we have an all Jamsk topic, where we get to see the language?


Whatever you wish for. :wink:
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan

Priscian
Posts: 165
Joined: 2006-01-07, 11:33
Real Name: U. R. Wiman
Gender: male
Location: Lao PDR
Country: LA Laos (ລາວ)

Postby Priscian » 2006-05-02, 12:16

Grammar of Jamtsk’

I have a general issue, not pertaining to the normalization of Jamtlandic, but rather dealing with the creation of a template for the grammar. I wrote a synopsis of Low Saxon grammar, on one A4 page, which can be used as an embryo for a larger outline, perhaps for Jamtlandic too. Unfortunately, I do not really know functional grammar, but use a traditional approach, i.e. ‘parts of speech’. The traditional approach has many shortcomings, but it provides a general overview of a language, which can function as building blocks to larger and more complete descriptions. The basic template (‘parts of speech’) can be expanded to include deeper treatments of phonology, syntax, and semantics. What do you think of this approach?

Sample of a suggested template:

Overview of Low Saxon Grammar

Low Saxon (Low German) is a Germanic language spoken primarily in northern Germany, eastern Netherlands, and by a large Diaspora (cf. Mennonites) in such places as Belize, Denmark, Mexico, Paraguay, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, and the United States. There is no ‘standard’ for Low German, but it shows regional variation in regards to phonology and morphology. The orthography varies considerably, but generally the norm has been to approximate German spelling conventions.

Article: In Low Saxon there are two articles, definite and indefinite. The definite article shows gender, case, and number. i.e. masculine (de), feminine (de), or neuter (dat); the plural article (de) is identical for all genders and cases. The cases of the article are: nominative, possessive, and oblique. The indefinite article has the same basic form in for all genders and cases (n).

Noun: A noun identifies a person (Rudolf), thing (Book), place (Eerd), and concept (Glieknis). Nouns can show gender, masculine (de Mann), feminine (de Döör), and neuter (dat Huus). Plural in Low Saxon is formed by diverse ways, e.g. endings, vowels change, or no change at all (as a result the plural along with the grammatical gender needs to be memorized). Nouns, as in German, are capitalized, e.g. dat Riek, de Welt, dat Solt, etc.

Adjective: The adjectives give information about a noun, e.g. "Dat Huus is lüüt(et)." The adjectives agree with nouns in gender, number, and case, but frequently it is invariable. The adjective can also show degree of comparison (positive) stark, (comparative) starker and (superlative) starkest. The numerals are adjectives, een, twee, dree, veer, etc. (cardinals); erste. tweede. törde, veerde, fiefde, etc. (ordinals).

Adverb: The adverbs give information about a verb or an adjective, e.g. “Ik harr mien Vadder güstern seen.” “Dat Land is nicht groot.”Adverbs derived from adjectives use the base form (i.e. no inflectional endings).

Pronoun: The pronouns often take the place of a noun, e.g. ”Se list n’ englische Book.” instead of ”Anna list n’ englische Book.” The pronouns are declined into cases (nominative, possessive, and oblique) The pronouns in Low Saxon are: ik, mien, mi, (1st person. singular); wi us, us, (1st person plural); du, dien, di, (2nd person singular); ji, jun, ju, (2nd person plural); hi / se, sien / ehr, em / ehr, (3rd person singular, masculine and feminine); se, jemehr, jem, (3rd person plural). The reflexive pronoun for 3rd is sick (singular and plural).

Verb: The action word of the sentence is the verb, e.g. "He sä dat wi schülen dat Book lesen." Low Saxon verbs are either strong (irregular) or weak (regular). The verb can show mood (indicative, imperative, and infinitive), voice (active and passive), tense (time), person (1st, 2nd, and 3rd). The principal parts of a Low Saxon weak verb are infinitive(hüüren), present (hüür + endings), and past participle (hüürt); strong verbs have vowel change in the stem, e.g., dregen (infinitive); drigg + ending (present); droog (preterite); and dragen (past participle). The participle has root + t in regular verbs and a vowel change in stem of irregular verbs. Verbs can either be transitive, which take an object ("De Vadder snackt mit den Mann.") or intransitive, which do not take a direct object ("He schlöpt freutlich.").

Preposition: The prepositions show information about time, place, and directions, e.g. (time) um veer Uhr; (place) op n Barg; (direction) to den Schooster.

Conjunction: A conjunction joins together sentences or part of a sentence, e.g. “Peter un Hans hebben den Pizza eten, as Jim hett dat Water drunken.”

Interjection: An emotional outcry, e.g. “Oh ja, use Katt is ool!”

An etymological approach, with which I agree, how would it be perceived by the regular user of Jamtsk? What are the orthographic conventions for a normalized Jamtsk’?
Arma virumque cano

Vergilius

User avatar
Aszev
Posts: 702
Joined: 2005-04-22, 20:57
Gender: male
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Postby Aszev » 2006-05-02, 16:41

Hunef wrote:Aszev, only because you haven't heard of something, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
:roll:
Did I say that it didn't exist?

Priscian
Posts: 165
Joined: 2006-01-07, 11:33
Real Name: U. R. Wiman
Gender: male
Location: Lao PDR
Country: LA Laos (ລາວ)

Postby Priscian » 2006-05-03, 2:52

Re: Nomenclature

What is the correct designation for the language(s) in Jämtland? The problem, as I see it, is there are three languages from which the term “Jamtlandic” is drawn from, i.e. English, Jamtlandic, and Swedish.

Are the following designations correct?

Jamtlandic: The language of Jämtland (landskap).

Jämtska: The Swedish dialect spoken in Jämtland, not to be confused with Jamtsk’ or Jamska.

Jamtsk’ (Jamska): The Jamtlandic designation of the language.

Neo-Jamtlandic: Nyjamtsk’ (?)

What is the preferred English pronunciation of Jamtlandic (in IPA)?

Is the language continuum something like the following?

Jamtsk’ <-> South and North Jamtsk’ <-> Jämtska (Swedish dialect) <-> Rikksmål (Swedish)
Arma virumque cano



Vergilius

Priscian
Posts: 165
Joined: 2006-01-07, 11:33
Real Name: U. R. Wiman
Gender: male
Location: Lao PDR
Country: LA Laos (ລາວ)

Postby Priscian » 2006-05-03, 2:56

Re: Orthography

Using an etymological based orthography gives the language its own position (legitimacy), while using a Norwegian based system (Bo Oscarson) or Swedish-derived one (dialect writers) is perhaps practical, but it puts it in the domain of dialektlitteratur.

How is this issue tackled? Introducing a solid spelling convention using a historical approach may not be (initially) accepted by the users.
Arma virumque cano



Vergilius

User avatar
Hunef
Posts: 9532
Joined: 2004-01-21, 20:55
Gender: male
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Postby Hunef » 2006-05-03, 13:57

Priscian:
Re: Orthography

Using an etymological based orthography gives the language its own position (legitimacy), while using a Norwegian based system (Bo Oscarson) or Swedish-derived one (dialect writers) is perhaps practical, but it puts it in the domain of dialektlitteratur.


I completely agree. This has been my main argument against the way Akademien för jamska treats Jamtlandic. Not only that their spelling is, in this sense, "dialectal", they don't normalise the language either. A typical example is that they don't respect the non-initial soft g/k in genuine Jamtlandic. For example, the noun bok (using their spelling) 'book' would in definite form be spelled bokja, but they spell it boka without softening. (Old Norse bókin where the i is responsible for softening.) The reason is of course that most people today pronunce it without softening, not due to an inner process but through swedification of spoken Jamtlandic.

At the moment, I am at spelling the example above bókja, but this is a compromise. I would prefer using the hooked vowels. (I used to have the spelling bókį here.)

Priscian:
How is this issue tackled? Introducing a solid spelling convention using a historical approach may not be (initially) accepted by the users.

Faroese had a similar problem 100-150 years ago. It took Vencesalus Ulricus Hammershaimb 50 years (from about 1850-1900) to make Faroese people to get used to his spelling. The authority Jakob Jakobsen (who did alot for saving Norn) had his own, less etymological and more "dialectal" spelling convention, but he fortunately lost here. (Ironically, Jakob Jakobsen is the rôle model of one of the members of Akademien för jamska, but due to his work concerning Norn. I don't think he's even aware that J.J.
almost succeeded to mess up the Faroese language in its written form, very much like AfJ does today. Like Hammershaimb is my rôle model, Jakobsen is the rôle model of some of the members of AfJ. Ironically...)
Last edited by Hunef on 2006-05-03, 14:00, edited 1 time in total.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan

User avatar
Hunef
Posts: 9532
Joined: 2004-01-21, 20:55
Gender: male
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Postby Hunef » 2006-05-03, 13:58

What has happened to the quoting command? :roll:
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan

User avatar
Hunef
Posts: 9532
Joined: 2004-01-21, 20:55
Gender: male
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Postby Hunef » 2006-05-03, 14:27

Since the quoting command doesn't work, I use color coding instead.

Priscian:
Re: Nomenclature

What is the correct designation for the language(s) in Jämtland? The problem, as I see it, is there are three languages from which the term “Jamtlandic” is drawn from, i.e. English, Jamtlandic, and Swedish.

Are the following designations correct?

Jamtlandic: The language of Jämtland (landskap).

Jämtska: The Swedish dialect spoken in Jämtland, not to be confused with Jamtsk’ or Jamska.

Jamtsk’ (Jamska): The Jamtlandic designation of the language.

Neo-Jamtlandic: Nyjamtsk’ (?)


I would say the following:

*Jamtlandic: The English term for the well-defined group of traditional scandinavian dialects spoken in the swedish landskap (i.e., historical province) Jämtland.

*Jämtska: Same as above, but the Swedish term for it.

*Jamska: Same as above, but the Akademien för jamska Jamtlandic term for it.

*Jamtsk': My term (i.e., using my orthography) for the same thing as above.

*Neo-Jamtlandic (in my written normal, nýjamtsk'): The English ternm for Jamtlandic as spoken later than about 1500AD. I used to use it for denoting my written normal, but no longer so. See below.

*High Jamtlandic (in my written normal, hœgjamtsk'): The English term for my written normal for Jamtlandic. (And possibly also for other scandinavian dialects spoken in Jämtland and also possibly for the dialects in Härjedalen.)

Priscian:
What is the preferred English pronunciation of Jamtlandic (in IPA)?

Something like [ˈdʒæmtˌlændɪk], I guess.

Priscian:
Is the language continuum something like the following?

Jamtsk’ <-> South and North Jamtsk’ <-> Jämtska (Swedish dialect) <-> Rikksmål (Swedish)


I would say the following (using English terms and the definitions above):

(1) High Jamtlandic <--> (2) Jamtlandic <--> (3) Swedified Jamtlandic <--> (4) Regiolectal Standard Swedish <--> (5) Standard Swedish

Here, (1) is the written normal I have defined the frameworks of.
(2) and (3) are what one today mean by the well-defined group of dialects spoken in Jämtland. (2) are as they are spoken in the most genuine form, (3) is the slightly swedified and perhaps also modernised version of Jamtlandic as most dialectal speakers employ. Akademien för jamska seems to not worry about using (2) instead of (3), giving spellings like boka 'the book', dan 'the day' etc instead of bokja, dagjen etc.
(4) is what most people in Jämtland speak today. Personally, I am between (3) and (4), like most young people with Jamtlandic speaking parents.
(5) is not yet the default way of speaking in Jämtland, but if nothing will be done, it will be so.

Note that it seems like the children of parents who are on level (n), are themselves on level (n+1). I am on (3) or (4) depending on situation, my parents are on (3). My grandparents were on (2) or (3) and my great grandparents probably were on (2). (They were born in late 19th century and died in the mid 20th century.)

My High Jamtlandic is trying to mimic the essence of Neo-Jamtlandic, i.e., the way Jamtlandic was spoken post 1500AD. I guess that the year 1700, the shift from Early Neo-Jamtlandic to Late Neo-Jamtlandic, is a good base to satnd on. In fact, the earliest records of (Neo-)Jamtlandic are from the early 1700's, so it is reasonable.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan

User avatar
Hunef
Posts: 9532
Joined: 2004-01-21, 20:55
Gender: male
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Postby Hunef » 2006-05-03, 14:33

Priscian:
Grammar of Jamtsk’

I have a general issue, not pertaining to the normalization of Jamtlandic, but rather dealing with the creation of a template for the grammar. I wrote a synopsis of Low Saxon grammar, on one A4 page, which can be used as an embryo for a larger outline, perhaps for Jamtlandic too. Unfortunately, I do not really know functional grammar, but use a traditional approach, i.e. ‘parts of speech’. The traditional approach has many shortcomings, but it provides a general overview of a language, which can function as building blocks to larger and more complete descriptions. The basic template (‘parts of speech’) can be expanded to include deeper treatments of phonology, syntax, and semantics. What do you think of this approach?

Sample of a suggested template:

[...]


The template looks fine to me. I'll try to write a corresponding one for High Jamtlandic. (For the definition of High Jamtlandic, see above.)
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan

Priscian
Posts: 165
Joined: 2006-01-07, 11:33
Real Name: U. R. Wiman
Gender: male
Location: Lao PDR
Country: LA Laos (ລາວ)

Postby Priscian » 2006-05-04, 2:14

Hunef wrote:
*Jamtlandic: The English term for the well-defined group of traditional scandinavian dialects spoken in the swedish landskap (i.e., historical province) Jämtland.

*Jämtska: Same as above, but the Swedish term for it.

*Jamska: Same as above, but the Akademien för jamska Jamtlandic term for it.

*Jamtsk': My term (i.e., using my orthography) for the same thing as above.

*Neo-Jamtlandic (in my written normal, nýjamtsk'): The English ternm for Jamtlandic as spoken later than about 1500AD. I used to use it for denoting my written normal, but no longer so. See below.

*High Jamtlandic (in my written normal, hœgjamtsk'): The English term for my written normal for Jamtlandic. (And possibly also for other scandinavian dialects spoken in Jämtland and also possibly for the dialects in Härjedalen.)


I like the delineation of the language!

Let's pursue Hœgjamtsk' since this benefits the language by creating a defined paradigm and hence giving it legitimacy.
Arma virumque cano



Vergilius

Priscian
Posts: 165
Joined: 2006-01-07, 11:33
Real Name: U. R. Wiman
Gender: male
Location: Lao PDR
Country: LA Laos (ລາວ)

Postby Priscian » 2006-05-04, 2:26

Yes, Hammershaimb had the correct view of Faeroese by seeing the language as a whole (diachronically), while Jakobsen concerned himself more with the immediacy.

The danger with not basing a language on a historical etymology is that the language can become fissiparous (cf. current situation with Cornish).

It is always better to set a higher standard than the quick fix, although this may sound elitist. The quick fix invariably becomes permanent.
Arma virumque cano



Vergilius

User avatar
Hunef
Posts: 9532
Joined: 2004-01-21, 20:55
Gender: male
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Postby Hunef » 2006-05-04, 19:26

Priscian:
Hunef wrote:
*Jamtlandic: The English term for the well-defined group of traditional scandinavian dialects spoken in the swedish landskap (i.e., historical province) Jämtland.

*Jämtska: Same as above, but the Swedish term for it.

*Jamska: Same as above, but the Akademien för jamska Jamtlandic term for it.

*Jamtsk': My term (i.e., using my orthography) for the same thing as above.

*Neo-Jamtlandic (in my written normal, nýjamtsk'): The English ternm for Jamtlandic as spoken later than about 1500AD. I used to use it for denoting my written normal, but no longer so. See below.

*High Jamtlandic (in my written normal, hœgjamtsk'): The English term for my written normal for Jamtlandic. (And possibly also for other scandinavian dialects spoken in Jämtland and also possibly for the dialects in Härjedalen.)


I like the delineation of the language!

Let's pursue Hœgjamtsk' since this benefits the language by creating a defined paradigm and hence giving it legitimacy.


I agree on using hœgjamtsk'/High Jamtlandic (in Jamtlandic/English) as the name of my specific written normal. The dialect/language itself should be referred to as jamtsk'/Jamtlandic (in Jamtlandic/English), though.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan

Priscian
Posts: 165
Joined: 2006-01-07, 11:33
Real Name: U. R. Wiman
Gender: male
Location: Lao PDR
Country: LA Laos (ລາວ)

Postby Priscian » 2006-05-11, 4:47

Traditional vs. Functional Grammar


This is a difficult subject for me, since I tend to use traditional grammar, because the languages I have studied English, German, and Latin have been from traditional (prescriptive) grammars. I realize that today these are viewed with suspicion and carry a clout of elitism. I believe for native users descriptive grammars are enlightening, while for the language learner the traditional grammar is almost necessity.

Yes, I am aware of Chomsky’s generative grammar and his hierarchy, which are sound in the science of linguistics, but I am not convinced how they function within a language revival or rejuvenation. While a language is in the process of normalization the traditional grammar gives the language fundamental perimeters, which set lines demarcation. Here the traditional can function as a tool for the establishment of a norm, giving the existing variation (cf. Jamtlandic dialects).

I like “Dalecarlian Grammar” (online version) since it deals with the language in a comprehensive manner, i.e. it gives the structure without dealing with technical (linguistic) details. Yes, the linguistic descriptions are necessary for full understanding, but in depth analysis of particulars are probably beyond the scope and interest of most users. However, too few detailed descriptions move the language back into “Heimatslitteratur,” which so frequently happens when German dialects are depicted.

An interesting parallel is the Cornish language revival and how it succeeded and many regards failed. It is an absolute success in the sense that the language is back and has able users, but it has since broken into fissiparous factions, some advocating a Middle Cornish as a point of departure, while others are arguing for a relativistic ‘modern’ outline. If the Faeroese had taken a relativistic approach, the language would be relegated to a ‘colorful’ local idiom today. Although the etymological approach is initially more difficult for the user, it prevents the variations that later creep in by each user arbitrarily using any orthographic conventions he / she chooses. Also using the historical approach to construct the grammar gives the language continuance, i.e. legitimacy, which later prevents a (the) language from breaking into factions competing for scarce resources.
Arma virumque cano



Vergilius

User avatar
Skurai
Posts: 177
Joined: 2005-09-10, 9:09
Real Name: Kevin Kihlander
Gender: male
Location: Uppsala
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)
Contact:

Postby Skurai » 2006-05-12, 7:10

This is awesome, I can't wait to learn some :D
cy | gv

User avatar
Hunef
Posts: 9532
Joined: 2004-01-21, 20:55
Gender: male
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Postby Hunef » 2006-05-12, 16:27

Priscian wrote:Traditional vs. Functional Grammar


This is a difficult subject for me, since I tend to use traditional grammar, because the languages I have studied English, German, and Latin have been from traditional (prescriptive) grammars. I realize that today these are viewed with suspicion and carry a clout of elitism. I believe for native users descriptive grammars are enlightening, while for the language learner the traditional grammar is almost necessity.

Yes, I am aware of Chomsky’s generative grammar and his hierarchy, which are sound in the science of linguistics, but I am not convinced how they function within a language revival or rejuvenation. While a language is in the process of normalization the traditional grammar gives the language fundamental perimeters, which set lines demarcation. Here the traditional can function as a tool for the establishment of a norm, giving the existing variation (cf. Jamtlandic dialects).

I like “Dalecarlian Grammar” (online version) since it deals with the language in a comprehensive manner, i.e. it gives the structure without dealing with technical (linguistic) details. Yes, the linguistic descriptions are necessary for full understanding, but in depth analysis of particulars are probably beyond the scope and interest of most users. However, too few detailed descriptions move the language back into “Heimatslitteratur,” which so frequently happens when German dialects are depicted.

An interesting parallel is the Cornish language revival and how it succeeded and many regards failed. It is an absolute success in the sense that the language is back and has able users, but it has since broken into fissiparous factions, some advocating a Middle Cornish as a point of departure, while others are arguing for a relativistic ‘modern’ outline. If the Faeroese had taken a relativistic approach, the language would be relegated to a ‘colorful’ local idiom today. Although the etymological approach is initially more difficult for the user, it prevents the variations that later creep in by each user arbitrarily using any orthographic conventions he / she chooses. Also using the historical approach to construct the grammar gives the language continuance, i.e. legitimacy, which later prevents a (the) language from breaking into factions competing for scarce resources.


I definitely agree with you here. We all know that the dialects are dying, so the only way of preserving a "tongue" (general definition) is to make it a standardised language. Jamtlandic can only survive if it is considered a language which can be used in as many domains of society as possible. A dialect has a very small domain (per definition), and in order to make it possible for it to reach new domains, it needs to be strengthened. To strengthen it it is necessary to form a written standard which can "compete" with the dominating languages' (Swedish in today's Jämtland). My view of strengthening, amongst the North Germanic dialects, is to form a written standard which is based on etymology. This is how Icelandic, Faroese and Neo-Norwegian were created. If you must kick upwards to get anywhere, you need to be sure you can kick hard. (Unfortunately, Neo-Norwegian wasn't hard enough.) Swedish and Danish have always kicked downwards, so those kicks have never had to be hard. Since Jamtlandic is kicking from below and upwards, it needs to be strong to kick hard. It needs a firm rooting in Old Norse.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan

User avatar
Hunef
Posts: 9532
Joined: 2004-01-21, 20:55
Gender: male
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Postby Hunef » 2006-05-12, 16:30

Skurai wrote:This is awesome, I can't wait to learn some :D

I have reformed my spelling quite much the last two weeks or so, which is why I haven't given any "lesson" (or whatevere I should call it) here for some time. At the moment, I am waiting for a referree of my new orthography to respond. Hopefully, he'll give me green light to go for it. :wink:
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan

User avatar
Hunef
Posts: 9532
Joined: 2004-01-21, 20:55
Gender: male
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

The Alphabet of Jamtlandic

Postby Hunef » 2006-05-12, 17:01

Since my alphabet for Jamtlandic has converged into something real and stable now, I'll give a presentation of it here in this thread.

The alphabet of Jamtlandic is the following one:

    Aa Áá Bb Dd Ðð Ee Ëë Éé Ff Gg Hh Ii Íí Jj Kk Ll Mm Nn
    Oo Óó Pp Rr Ss Tt Uu Úú Vv Yy Ÿÿ Ýý Ęę Ææ Øø Œœ


Note here that the vowels are in pairs: Aa with Áá, Ee/Ëë with Éé, Ii with Íí,... , Ęę with Ææ and Øø with Œœ. Historically, in Old Norse, the ones to the right in the pairs were the long versions of the ones to the left. This etymology is kept almost unaltered, with some exceptions. (This is not important today though, but serves as a historic remark.)

Below we start going through the alphabet. It will be a few postings here, but the whole alphabet will be covered eventualy. I promise! :wink:

(Note that [´] and [`] denote monosyllabic and polysyllabic pitch accent, respectively. This is the same as in Swedish and Norwegian, where the famous example is "an´den" 'the duck' vs "an`den" 'the spirit'. Also note that [ˑ] formally denotes a semi-long vowel, which in practice means that in most dialects one has a long vowel, in some dialects one may have an actual semilong vowel and in a few East Jamtlandic dialects one may have a short vowel.)

A (hard vowel):
Pronunced [ɑˑ]: dag [dɑˑɣ] n. 'day'
Pronunced [a]: Gakk! [gakː] v. imp. sg. 'Walk!'
Pronunced [æˑ]: karr [kʰæˑɾ] n. 'man'
Pronunced [æ]: mark [mæʂk] n. 'worm'

Á (hard vowel):
Pronunced [oː]: há [hoːɽ] adj. 'hard'
Pronunced [ɔ]: háttlegjen [ˈhɔtː`ˌleɪːn] adj. 'pleasant, nice'
Last edited by Hunef on 2006-05-14, 0:31, edited 6 times in total.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan

User avatar
Nukalurk
Posts: 5843
Joined: 2004-04-23, 20:45
Location: Berlin
Country: DE Germany (Deutschland)

Postby Nukalurk » 2006-05-12, 17:04

Just a short remark: printed italic "æ" and "œ" are hard to distinguish with many fonts. :?

Test: æ œ

Okay, here it works, though you have to get used to the little difference. ;)


Return to “Other Languages”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest