SAGA-BOOK - Viking Society Web Publications
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

SAGA-BOOK - Viking Society Web Publications

SAGA-BOOK - Viking Society Web Publications SAGA-BOOK - Viking Society Web Publications

vsnrweb.publications.org.uk
from vsnrweb.publications.org.uk More from this publisher
23.03.2013 Views

NOTES 1. ON WOLFGANG KRAUSE'S DIE SPRACI-IE DER URNORDISCHEN RUNENINSCHRIFTEN (1971) By MICHAEL BARNES WOLFGANG KRAUSE was a sound philologist but not an expert in modern linguistics. Seen in terms of Alexander ]6hannesson's Frumnorram mdlfra;!Ji and Noreen's Altisldndische und altnorwegische Grammatik his work is it meticulous and authoritative study of the language of the Primitive Norse inscriptions (i.e. inscriptions found in Scandinavia or of probable Scandinavian origin c. A.D. 200-775). The linguist, however, will regret the lack of any attempt to see "Urnordisch" as a system or systems rather than as a collection of more or less isolated sounds, syllables, roots and endings. This lack is all the more perceptible in a grammar dealing with a language or languages about which we have such limited sources of information: we may be able to make some sense of the whole, but the individual elements, frequently interpreted in different ways by scholars, are in themselves often very uncertain. An important question which strikes the reader from the outset is whether it is helpful to class together all runic inscriptions found in Scandinavia or of probable Scandinavian origin from the period c. A.D. 200-775. Gustav Indrebe considered that: "Det er eit sterre stig fra malet pi! Tune-steinen (ikr. 450) til millet pa Eggja-steinen (ikr. 650) cnn fra. gamalnorsk til det nynorske normalmalet"," and in his introduction (p. IS) Krause acknowledges a marked distinction between the language of early and late proto-Scandinavian inscriptions. He talks of "Fruh-" and "Spaturnordisch", the former c. A.D. 200-600, the latter c. A.D. 600-775. Another question about which there has recently been discussion is whether the language of the earliest Scandinavian runic inscriptions (before c. 500) should properly be classed as proto-Scandinavian or common Northwest Germanic." Krause devotes a whole section of his book (Part I, B) to "Das Urnordische zwischen Urgermanisch und Altnordisch", hut no real 1 Gustav Indrebe, Norsk mdlsoga (1951), 46. 2 Cf. Elmer H. Antonsen, ' "Proto-Scandinavian" and Common Nordic', Scandinavian Studies 39 (1967), 16-21.

Notes 355 attempt is made to demonstrate that either "Friihurnordisch" or "Spaturnordisch" is specifically "Nordisch" In the case of the latter this is perhaps unnecessary, but since the title of this section suggests that with "Urnordisch" we have left behind any kind of common Germanic, a list of the criteria by which we can distinguish North from West Germanic before c. A.D. 500 ought to have been provided." If the purpose of Part I, B of the book is not to demonstrate that we have from the time of the earliest Norse inscriptions a language recognisable as specifically Norse, there seems little point in making it separate from Part I, C ("Die Sprachformen der urnordischen Inschriften"), and indeed in numerous cases information contained in the one section is merely repeated in the other. The confusion which arises from the lack of any clear definition of "Urnordisch" is well illustrated by the "Ausgewahlte Paradigmata zur urnordischen Flexion" which appear on pp. 123-8. One might reasonably expect these paradigms to consist of a series of tables containing such inflexions as are attested in the inscriptions the book deals with. But this is far from the case. The paradigms are almost entirely reconstructions of a "Friihurnordisch" which would probably have been incomprehensible to the writer of the Eggjum stone, yet this stone is included as an "urnordische Inschrift" A number of inflexions cannot be reconstructed on the basis of the medieval Scandinavian languages (of which "Urnordisch" is presented as the common parent), but only by reference to other Germanic languages. This is the case, for example, with *gastimR, dat. pI. of gastiu, medieval Scand. gestum, gaistum, Stentoften (Krause, Die Runeninschriften im iilteren Futhark, 1966, hereafter abbreviated Kr., No. 96) gestumR, Goth. gastim, OHG gestim. A prototype which is reconstructed by reference to several languages, however, is by definition the prototype of all these languages and not of just the one. Because of the uncertainty as to whether we are dealing with Northwest or North Germanic in the earliest inscriptions, and since most of the following discussion is concerned with actual rather than reconstructed forms, I propose to discard proto-Norse in favour of the more general term Primitive Norse. Let us now turn to the inscriptions themselves and Krause's treatment of their language. One should from the start be aware of the fact that Die Sprache der urnordischen Runeninschriften is a grammar of Krause's interpretation or understanding of the inscriptions. It could of course hardly be otherwise, given the degree of uncertainty that • The few remarks in Section A, p. 19 about the nom. masc. sing. -3 ending and the and pers. sing. past indic. of strong verbs do not in any way establish firm criteria.

NOTES<br />

1. ON WOLFGANG KRAUSE'S<br />

DIE SPRACI-IE DER URNORDISCHEN<br />

RUNENINSCHRIFTEN (1971)<br />

By MICHAEL BARNES<br />

WOLFGANG KRAUSE was a sound philologist but not an<br />

expert in modern linguistics. Seen in terms of Alexander<br />

]6hannesson's Frumnorram mdlfra;!Ji and Noreen's Altisldndische<br />

und altnorwegische Grammatik his work is it meticulous and<br />

authoritative study of the language of the Primitive Norse<br />

inscriptions (i.e. inscriptions found in Scandinavia or of probable<br />

Scandinavian origin c. A.D. 200-775). The linguist, however, will<br />

regret the lack of any attempt to see "Urnordisch" as a system or<br />

systems rather than as a collection of more or less isolated sounds,<br />

syllables, roots and endings. This lack is all the more<br />

perceptible in a grammar dealing with a language or languages<br />

about which we have such limited sources of information: we may<br />

be able to make some sense of the whole, but the individual<br />

elements, frequently interpreted in different ways by scholars,<br />

are in themselves often very uncertain.<br />

An important question which strikes the reader from the outset<br />

is whether it is helpful to class together all runic inscriptions<br />

found in Scandinavia or of probable Scandinavian origin from the<br />

period c. A.D. 200-775. Gustav Indrebe considered that: "Det<br />

er eit sterre stig fra malet pi! Tune-steinen (ikr. 450) til millet pa<br />

Eggja-steinen (ikr. 650) cnn fra. gamalnorsk til det nynorske<br />

normalmalet"," and in his introduction (p. IS) Krause<br />

acknowledges a marked distinction between the language of early<br />

and late proto-Scandinavian inscriptions. He talks of "Fruh-"<br />

and "Spaturnordisch", the former c. A.D. 200-600, the latter<br />

c. A.D. 600-775. Another question about which there has<br />

recently been discussion is whether the language of the earliest<br />

Scandinavian runic inscriptions (before c. 500) should properly be<br />

classed as proto-Scandinavian or common Northwest Germanic."<br />

Krause devotes a whole section of his book (Part I, B) to "Das<br />

Urnordische zwischen Urgermanisch und Altnordisch", hut no real<br />

1 Gustav Indrebe, Norsk mdlsoga (1951), 46.<br />

2 Cf. Elmer H. Antonsen, ' "Proto-Scandinavian" and Common Nordic',<br />

Scandinavian Studies 39 (1967), 16-21.

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!