Rit (Vísindafélag Íslendinga) - 01.06.1970, Page 400
398
(d) Finally there are many cases of the same sign-expres-
sion covering (parts of) quite unrelated fields of meaning (non-
complementary); e.g. Sw. hángsel ‘suspenders’, Da. hængsel
‘hinge on a door’; No. skpnne ‘understand’, Da. skenne
‘estimate’; Sw. krog ‘pub’, Da. krog ‘hook’.
*
Some of the examples mentioned above under (3) could
be discussed in relation to homonymy, except that this notion
is properly used only about signs within one autonomous
language system, when the same expression covers different
contents. In a wider, inter-Nordic, language context one
might talk about homographs in the case of Sw. krog ‘pub’
and Da. krog ‘hook’, but homophones in the case of Sw. socker
‘sugar’ and Da. sokker ‘socks’, except that complete homo-
phony is prevented by the diífering tonal accents in the three
languages.
Of course, in theory, the context will normally prevent
misunderstanding in cases of homonymy; but experience
shows that, in practice, it does not always do so, even when
the words have different gender, revealed through their
syntagmatic relations (e.g., with the article) or through inflec-
tion. Sw. en skur ‘shower’, for instance, will be confused with
Da. et skur ‘shed’; cf. also Da. en som = Sw. söm ‘seam’ with Da.
et som ‘nail’ = Sw. sþik, No. spiker.
Small divergencies in spelling and pronunciation do not
always prevent misunderstanding, but may, on the contrary,
lead one astray; often only a faint resemblance leads to con-
fusion, as when Sw. varelse ‘human body’ is confused by Danes
with Da. vœrelse ‘room’, or Sw. slát ‘even, smooth’ with Da.
slet ‘of poor quality’.
From a diachronic point of view, a sound change (a shift in
the expression system or its manifestations) in one of the lan-
guages has in some cases led to coalescence and caused homo-
nyms to arise with the risk of confusion of meaning; e.g.
Da. krage (< kraki) ‘crow’, Sw. krage ‘collar’; cf. also Da. krog