The Icelandic Canadian - 01.12.1961, Side 24

22
THE ICELANDIC CANADIAN
Winter 1961
and fractures are given below. Both
of these vowel changes are similar in
nature and come within the above
defined category.
1) Mutations, i- or j-mutations are
very common in Old Norse and are
caused by i or vocalic j. Examples:
a) e became i as for instance in sigla
(to sail), which is derived from segl (a
sail) and virki (fort), which comes from
verk (work.)
b) a became e in drengr (a valiant,
worthy man), which is derived from
drangr (rook) and telja (to count, con-
sider), which comes from tala (to talk).
c) a became ae in fraegr (famous),
which is derived from the third prin-
cipal part of fregna (to ask), i.e. fragum
(we asked.)
d) u became y in spyrja (to ask), the
original meaning of which is “to trace
somebody’s footprints”, of. German
Spur (footprint).
e) 6 became ae in daema (to judge),
which comes from domr (judgement).
f) u became y in hysa (put up for the
night), which is derived from hus
(house).
g) au became ey in hreysti (strength),,
which is derived from hraustr (strong).
h) ju became y in the comparative
degree mykri (softer), the positive
degree of which is mjukr (soft).
i) jo became y in Jryfi (stolen goods),
which is derived from }>jofr (thief).
2) Fractures: Here we have a seperate
class of vowel changes which is, in its na-
ture, very similar to mutations. In Old
Norse two different kinds of fracture
took place when either a or u split or
transformed the preceding e into ja
(a-fracture) or jo (u->fracture). Exam-
ples: bjarga (to save) is derived from
berg (rock); jotunn (giant) is derived
from the stem et- which appears in eta
(to eat).
These few examples of vowel changes
in Old Norse will show how the stu-
dent will gradually acquire a wider
knowledge of his field and discern a
striking unity in the etymology of the
language—a unity possible only in a
language which for thousands of years
has maintained a high degree of self-
sufficiency in the matter of forming
new words for new objects and new
ideas. It is interesting to note that Ice-
landic philologists are still preoccupied
with coining new words, some of which
are formed according to the same
principles as the derivatives mentioned
above.
A few more observations on the
vowel changes are in order. It is inter-
esting to analyse the different relations
which exist between the derivative and
its parent. They are by no means of
an exclusively philological nature.
Once the grammatical or philological
law of mutations has been established
the philologist can prove that drengr
(a valiant, worthy man) is derived from
drangr (rock). However lie does not
only recognize the vowel change, but
also the similarity in meaning and the
distinctive qualities which the deriva-
tive has inherited from the parent. The
relationship between ferS (journey)
and fjorSr (fjord) (u-fracture) points
toward the original meaning of the
latter as having been “a journey into
the land”. It is highly improbable, how-
ever, that geologists would accept this
explanation. The adjective fraegr is self-
explanatory when we know that it is
derived from fragum (we asked). The
connection between eta (eat) and
jotunn (giant) shows that the jotunn
must have been thought of as being
“a big eater”. Thus the study of phil-
ology is often closely linked with other
fields of learning, as for instance folk
lore (in the case of jotunn) and seman-
tics (the science of meaning).
By studying mutations and fractures
in Old Norse the student will be able