Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.1993, Qupperneq 207

Málfrœðihugmyndir Sturlunga
205
Jón Þorkelsson. 1895. Supplement til islandske Ordbpger.Anden Samling. Ny Udgave.
Skandinavisk Antiquariat, Kaupmannahöfn.
Keil, Henricus. 1961. Grammatici Latini ex Recensione Henrici Keili Vol. II-IV.
Geoig Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, Hildesheim. [Endurprentun eldri útgáfu frá
1855-64.]
Kiparsky, Paul. 1984. On the Lexical Phonology of Icelandic. Claes Christian Elert,
Iréne Johansson og Eva Strangert (ritstj.): Nordic Prosody III. Umeá Studies in
the Humanities 59. Almquist & Wiksell Intemational, Stockholm.
Kjartan Ottósson. 1986. Indicier pá tonaccentsdistinktion i aldre islandska. íslenskt
mál og almenn málfrœði 8:183-90.
Kristján Ámason. 1980. Quantity in Historical Phonology: Icelandic and related
Cases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
—. 1984. Ritdómur um Raschellá 1982. íslenskt mál og almenn málfrœði 6:210-17.
—. 1991. The Rhythms of Dróttkvœtt and other Old lcelandic Metres. Institute of
Linguistics. University of Iceland, Reykjavík.
Raschellá, Fabrizio (útg.). 1982. The So-Called SecondGrammaticalTreatise. Edition,
Translation, and Commentaiy. Philologica Germanica. Testi e Studi. Felice le
Monnier, Firenze.
Robins, R.H. 1967. A ShortHistory ofLinguistics. Longmans, London.
Stefán Karlsson. 1964. Gömul hljóðdvöl í ungum rímum. íslenzk tunga — Lingua
Islandica 5:7-29.
SUMMARY
This article discusses the linguistic thought of two well known scholars of the
family of Sturiungar in the Icelandic middle ages, namely Snorri Sturluson and his
nephew Ólafr Þórðarson hvítaskáld. It is shown that Snorri, who in any case should
not be classified as a linguist, uses in his Háttatal a terminology which, although
influenced by contemporaiy linguistic scholarship, is much more independent of the
foreign sources than his nephew in the Third grammatical treatise. Ólafr is heavily
mfluenced by the contemporaiy European linguistic literature, and has been accused
of forcing foreign terminology on his native tongue regardless of whether it fits or not.
He has thus been seen as less original than e.g. the First grammarian. In this paper,
an attempt is made, among other things, to determine whether Ólafrs descreptíon
of the categoiy of “hljóðs grein”, which is his term for what Priscian calls tenor
(ultimately deriving from the greek accents), can shed some light on the question of
whethcrOld Icelandic had word tones of the sort that show up in various contemporary
Scandinaviandialects. If Ólafrs writings supply any positive evidence, it is very slender
indeed. But it is shown that by assuming e.g. that Ólafrs distinction between “hvqss
hljóðs grein” (acutus) and “umbeygilig hljóðs grein” (circumflexus), which both are
said to occur in monosyllables, might derive from the fact that a tonal contour, which
marked monosyllables and could be seen as the prototype of accent 1 in Norwegian and