Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.2021, Blaðsíða 174

Swedish having girnilse. Hence, whereas the adjective gjarn is indisputably old,
derivatives of it need not be.
To answer Schulte’s question directly, I have to say that my diagnostic rules
are not only based on historical linguistics but also on philological analysis. It is
in fact this that prevents one from considering as old a word featuring a well-
established linguistic pattern. The distinction between prestige and necessity
loans, too, rests on both linguistic and philological criteria, as one has to discern
case by case what the relationship between native lexeme and loanword is. In my
research, I have tried to establish a series of rules, which are derived empirically
from the observed data. They describe the relationship between native word
typology and loanword typology, and explain a set of exceptions, which were
found in the data but (apparently) behave regularly.

1.3 The Eastern World and Eastern loans
Among the loans forming word pairs found in the researched material, and thus
addressed in the dissertation, only one word pertaining to the Eastern World was
found, namely dýflissa, which wandered into Icelandic from Slavic through Low
German. At any rate, I welcome Schulte’s suggestion on mentioning loans from
“the Eastern World” as e.g. fíll, although they are mainly secondary loans. This
would constitute an expansion of the relevant section in the introductory chapter
of the dissertation.

2. Replies to Sara M. Pons-Sanz
2.1 Diachronic and diatopic differences
Being the focus of the dissertation on the Icelandic lexicon and its dynamics,
rather than on the use that may or may not be tied to a single scriptorium or usus
scribendi, the provenance of manuscripts is not discussed in detail.
The possibility of comprising an analysis of relevant manuscript witnesses
also according to their provenance was taken into consideration in the earliest
stages of the project in 2014 (sic!). It was, however, discarded as a possible
research question for it would have greatly influenced (and possibly compro-
mised) the choice of works to be analyzed, as the provenance of a great number
of Icelandic manuscripts is not known with any certainty. In addition, I think
that to assume a priori that there could be a tendency in manuscripts from a given
scriptorium or at a given time to show preference in lexical choices (as concerns
loanwords and native synonyms), would equal to assuming that an incipient
“purist” attitude was present. But this is not the case.
At any rate, there was found one instance of a loanword, buklari, whose pres-
ence in Egils saga in Möðruvallabók (AM 132 fol.) is best explained by assuming
Matteo Tarsi174