Very interesting video, as always :). Also I couldn’t help but notice how “healthy”? Those birch trees look! Made me want to go back into the forest! Many birch trees around here are damaged from ringbarking
Well, in Swedish 'slår' is to strike, or beat, but to knock is 'knacka'. If you 'beat' on the door it is slightly different action that 'knocking'; but possibly we just don't know what word Old Norse used in this one, quite specific context.
Some people love nothing better than to teach completely ad hoc, synchronic English grammar. Of course there's no trace of a synthetic language left--certainly not any trace they could understand. 'Long live the king!' (Definitely not indicative) 'I live. He lives.' (Indicative) 'They want to live.' (Infinitive) Great, so every verb has two forms in the present: '-s' or not. Nouns too. End of story. P.S., I think I found a reason to be wary of the monoglot.
@@ivanskyttejrgensen7464 You’re clearly right. Yet in form it’s definitely like the subjunctive(s) of German (it ends in -e, whether or not that’s a coincidence of orthography) and the problem of course is that we mark practically nothing in English. But in German the optative is expressed by the first conjunctive/subjunctive. (Though in fact German expresses this wish [for the long life of a sovereign] with an impersonal construction or simply reaches into the Latin grab bag for “Vivat”.)
In summary the morphological variation is so wanting, so anemic in English that it’s difficult to express oneself succinctly. Or to remain terse without ambiguity. What is not a periphrastic structure is not clear. For instance: “The car drives smoothly.” It is valid English-but who among English speakers will be able to realize the middle voice in use? No one. They’re going to categorize it as inexplicable idiomatic miscellany and shrug.
And that in itself is no problem. However it leads to the rejection of syntactically valid sentences when the hearer finds the semantics unfamiliar. “The book reads poorly.” If rejected then we have started toward reducing the middle voice to a negligible utility. Eventually it may only be considered valid when making positive assessments of vehicles or cutting tools in operation.
A brief question. You used *slær* as a stand-in for *to knock*. In modern Icelandic the word is *að banka*, Norwegian and Danish says *banke*. Only Swedish says *att knacka*. How much could one deduce from this brief cross-checking that the Old Norse term would be *að bakka?
Yes, the normal Swedish word is "knacka", but you also could use "banka". That would imply that you used your fists rather than the knuckle of a finger.
@@gustavalexandersson7876 Well, I'm not a native speaker and only used one online dictionary where knacka was the only translation for "anklopfen", i.e. to knock at a door...
I would not say 'how' and 'how' or 'er' and 'er' are homonyms. In all its functions 'how' has the very same origin, the same goes for 'er'. It's just that their usage/functions/semantic fields are different in each language.
In theory that would be rhotacism but I don't think the Yiddish example you cited is such a case though it could be; a more clear cut case would be Dutch vs. German verliezen vs. verlieren. In the Yiddish example you would have to show it is the same word etymologically but I am not very familiar with Yiddish so I do not know.
I think "az" is related to "als" in German, and "as" in English, rather than "er" in Old Norse. Both "als" and "as" are also related to "altså" in Scandinavian and "also" in English.
Hi Mr. Crawford, here in Brazil we have in our indigenous people (Tupi tribes) a history of a god Very similar to Odin (including being white and old, even with the indigenous not knowing white people at the time) the history is that he came walking above the water, do you think that a contact with nórdics are possible and that passed a version of the Odin mith ? Edit: the name of the god is pay sumé
You don't know who I am, but there are many of us who enjoy your videos.
Who are you? Do you know who I am?
Very insightful and something that took me a while to grasp on my own when studying Italian.
Thank you so much for posting these amazing videos. I appreciate you so much
Very interesting video, as always :).
Also I couldn’t help but notice how “healthy”? Those birch trees look! Made me want to go back into the forest! Many birch trees around here are damaged from ringbarking
Awesome. I don't even understand what all that means in English. ...And yet I am inspired to cary on.
Excellent timing. My class about semantics like three hours ago touched upon homonyms.
Thank you, Dr Crawford.
Introduction: Clark's Nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana). It remembers WHERE (Old Norse ER, right?) it stored its piñon nuts for the winter.
Your videos are so interesting. Thank you! (Jag är den som knackar) ;)
'Thar' in Flemish is 'daar'. 'Slaer' in Flemish is 'slaan', to beat.
It's mind boggling how similar contemporary Flemish and Old Norse are.
and 'ek' is exactly how some dialects in Flanders pronounce 'ik' (dutch for 'me')
@@debaronAZK you mean Nominative I
@@asjenmensink2740 correct
@Gísli Brynjólfsson in Flemish/Dutch, you say 'klop op de deur.'
Well, in Swedish 'slår' is to strike, or beat, but to knock is 'knacka'. If you 'beat' on the door it is slightly different action that 'knocking'; but possibly we just don't know what word Old Norse used in this one, quite specific context.
Some people love nothing better than to teach completely ad hoc, synchronic English grammar.
Of course there's no trace of a synthetic language left--certainly not any trace they could understand.
'Long live the king!' (Definitely not indicative)
'I live. He lives.' (Indicative)
'They want to live.' (Infinitive)
Great, so every verb has two forms in the present: '-s' or not. Nouns too. End of story.
P.S., I think I found a reason to be wary of the monoglot.
"Long live the King" is optative mood.
@@ivanskyttejrgensen7464 You’re clearly right. Yet in form it’s definitely like the subjunctive(s) of German (it ends in -e, whether or not that’s a coincidence of orthography) and the problem of course is that we mark practically nothing in English. But in German the optative is expressed by the first conjunctive/subjunctive. (Though in fact German expresses this wish [for the long life of a sovereign] with an impersonal construction or simply reaches into the Latin grab bag for “Vivat”.)
In summary the morphological variation is so wanting, so anemic in English that it’s difficult to express oneself succinctly. Or to remain terse without ambiguity. What is not a periphrastic structure is not clear. For instance: “The car drives smoothly.” It is valid English-but who among English speakers will be able to realize the middle voice in use? No one.
They’re going to categorize it as inexplicable idiomatic miscellany and shrug.
And that in itself is no problem. However it leads to the rejection of syntactically valid sentences when the hearer finds the semantics unfamiliar. “The book reads poorly.” If rejected then we have started toward reducing the middle voice to a negligible utility. Eventually it may only be considered valid when making positive assessments of vehicles or cutting tools in operation.
A brief question. You used *slær* as a stand-in for *to knock*. In modern Icelandic the word is *að banka*, Norwegian and Danish says *banke*. Only Swedish says *att knacka*. How much could one deduce from this brief cross-checking that the Old Norse term would be *að bakka?
@Gísli Brynjólfsson I just noticed the spelling error, corrected and thanks for the pointer. 🙃
Knacka is a Middle Low German loanword and not a native Swedish word.
Yes, the normal Swedish word is "knacka", but you also could use "banka". That would imply that you used your fists rather than the knuckle of a finger.
@@gustavalexandersson7876 Well, I'm not a native speaker and only used one online dictionary where knacka was the only translation for "anklopfen", i.e. to knock at a door...
@Gísli Brynjólfsson Wiktionary says that "banga" is a native Norse word. To bang, to pound
I would not say 'how' and 'how' or 'er' and 'er' are homonyms. In all its functions 'how' has the very same origin, the same goes for 'er'. It's just that their usage/functions/semantic fields are different in each language.
"er" seems to be Yiddish also: "az."
The old Z to R thing.
In theory that would be rhotacism but I don't think the Yiddish example you cited is such a case though it could be; a more clear cut case would be Dutch vs. German verliezen vs. verlieren. In the Yiddish example you would have to show it is the same word etymologically but I am not very familiar with Yiddish so I do not know.
I think "az" is related to "als" in German, and "as" in English, rather than "er" in Old Norse. Both "als" and "as" are also related to "altså" in Scandinavian and "also" in English.
It's funny, I know people who speak Yiddish, and while I've never heard "az" I have heard "als", "alz", and even "altz".
LOL... Doc Crawford, you a Breaking Bad fan by any chance?
@@stardust86x I don't know if you're up for it, but I'd certainly recommend giving it another go. Seasons 4 and 5 are particularly rewarding, methinks
I hear a diesel engine.
Hi Mr. Crawford, here in Brazil we have in our indigenous people (Tupi tribes) a history of a god Very similar to Odin (including being white and old, even with the indigenous not knowing white people at the time) the history is that he came walking above the water, do you think that a contact with nórdics are possible and that passed a version of the Odin mith ?
Edit: the name of the god is pay sumé
Hverr veitir er ek em?
Ek veitir ekki, er þig er.
@@SuperMagnetizer
Ek em Meatwad. Ok hverr er þu?