Origin of Icelanders

Very interesting. I always thought the Icelandic accent sounds vaguely Scottish. I just figured it was because Scotland was the closest English speaking part of the world.
Well, to be quite honest I doubt this has anything much to do with it. The modern Scottish accent didn't exist a thousand years ago, and is more deeply rooted in the then-Anglo-Brythonic Lowlands than the Gaelic Highlands and Isles. At the time, Highlanders and Islanders were considered indistinct from the Irish, while Lowlanders were considered to be either English or (approximately) Welsh. Even today, Highlanders and Islanders sounds noticeably distinct from their Lowland brethren, having a far more lyrical tone, reminiscent of Hiberno-English; the influence of Scots is clear in the Ulster Scots dialect, and to a lesser extent in the Northern Irish form of Hiberno-Irish, which lacks the Gaelic lilt of it's Southern relatives.
However, Scots is rather more Germanic in nature than English- the retention of the hard "ch" in the Scots "nicht", found in the German "nacht" and absence in the English "nicht", for example- so it's possible that the similarity which you have found originates in that.
 
http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/vikingorkney/genetics.htm

The last section is interesting. It says that the further you get from Scandinavia, the higher the disparities between "viking" Y-chromosones (male) and "viking" mitochondrial (female) lines become.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles#Genetic_peculiarities

Not really related but still interesting.
A problem with your Orkneys link is that it says 'immigrants from mainland Britain had settled in the islands' and fails to distinguish between the separate population groups on the island.
Iceland seems to me to be amazing in that it's the only major landmass first colonized by a complex literate society.
Depends on how you define 'literate'. Most of the settlers weren't.
Well, to be quite honest I doubt this has anything much to do with it. The modern Scottish accent didn't exist a thousand years ago, and is more deeply rooted in the then-Anglo-Brythonic Lowlands than the Gaelic Highlands and Isles. At the time, Highlanders and Islanders were considered indistinct from the Irish, while Lowlanders were considered to be either English or (approximately) Welsh. Even today, Highlanders and Islanders sounds noticeably distinct from their Lowland brethren, having a far more lyrical tone, reminiscent of Hiberno-English; the influence of Scots is clear in the Ulster Scots dialect, and to a lesser extent in the Northern Irish form of Hiberno-Irish, which lacks the Gaelic lilt of it's Southern relatives.
However, Scots is rather more Germanic in nature than English- the retention of the hard "ch" in the Scots "nicht", found in the German "nacht" and absence in the English "nicht", for example- so it's possible that the similarity which you have found originates in that.
I'd like to see how much the local dialects in cotland ar einfluenced by the preceding local dialect of Gaelic, you know. There are -or used to be- some important differences in pronunciation between them even though the structure was the same.
 
The Icelandic settlers weren't really "Vikings", though, in the proper sense. They were settlers, more akin to the New English pilgrims than to the raiders at Lindisfarne.

Many of them, perhaps, but the Vikings were the elite warrior-class of the society and undoubtedly would have been present as well. Especially given the fact that we do know for a fact from the Icelandic Sagas that raiders were present (Eric the Red was one, among quite a few others that are mentioned).

By that time, Norse and Danish settlement in the British Isles had become rather more established, the warriors having found more stable employment in the service of various kings and lords, and no more likely to "go viking" in Britain than in Scandinavia.

Hardly! Icelandic settlement began in 870 and by the middle of the next century, most land on the island was occupied. This is smack dab in the middle of the Viking heyday.

Certainly, anyone hoping to earn wealth and power- as the Vikings did- was unlikely to wind up on a frosty island a thousand miles North of nowhere.

Actually it's a very likely scenario, due to the blood feuds. What better place for a losing party to find refuge?
 
Well, to be quite honest I doubt this has anything much to do with it. The modern Scottish accent didn't exist a thousand years ago, and is more deeply rooted in the then-Anglo-Brythonic Lowlands than the Gaelic Highlands and Isles. At the time, Highlanders and Islanders were considered indistinct from the Irish, while Lowlanders were considered to be either English or (approximately) Welsh. Even today, Highlanders and Islanders sounds noticeably distinct from their Lowland brethren, having a far more lyrical tone, reminiscent of Hiberno-English; the influence of Scots is clear in the Ulster Scots dialect, and to a lesser extent in the Northern Irish form of Hiberno-Irish, which lacks the Gaelic lilt of it's Southern relatives.
However, Scots is rather more Germanic in nature than English- the retention of the hard "ch" in the Scots "nicht", found in the German "nacht" and absence in the English "nicht", for example- so it's possible that the similarity which you have found originates in that.

This is a common belief but is quite wrong. There was no Highlands or Lowlands in the 10th century. This is a product of the later middle ages only.

There is no general difference between Highland and Lowland accents today. Accents are more regional than this Scotland. Argyll people have for instance accents more similar to Glaswegians than they have to Inverness accents, and Glasgwegian accents likewise are more similar to Argyll accents than to Edinburgh accents. If I were to guess, the old lowland Scots accent is represented most closely by the Berwick to Dundee accents, which are typically the only accent foreigners think sound English, and are in decline versus the Glasgow accent.

Welsh isn't much relevant either. Though British dialects survived in a little part of Scotland longer than most areas of England, it's not something I'd think particularly relevant to "Lowland Scots". Gaelic has more recent history, much more recent history, in every part of Scotland than Welsh ... and Norse has, less generally, too.
 
This is a common belief but is quite wrong. There was no Highlands or Lowlands in the 10th century. This is a product of the later middle ages only.
I was using broad approximations. It is true to say that Gaelic culture dominated in what is now known as the "Highlands", wile Anglo-Brythonic culture dominated in what is not the "Lowlands". Obviously, there are exceptions- Galloway was largely Gaelic, and the East was a jumble of Angles, Gaels and Picts- but for the sake of those not familiar with the geography of Scotland, the distinction is sufficient.

There is no general difference between Highland and Lowland accents today. Accents are more regional than this Scotland. Argyll people have for instance accents more similar to Glaswegians than they have to Inverness accents, and Glasgwegian accents likewise are more similar to Argyll accents than to Edinburgh accents. If I were to guess, the old lowland Scots accent is represented most closely by the Berwick to Dundee accents, which are typically the only accent foreigners think sound English, and are in decline versus the Glasgow accent.
Argyll and Inverness aren't very fair examples- both are on the borders of the Highlands, and so have tended to absorb neighbouring dialects, in this case Glaswegian and Doric, respectively. If you talk to someone from the West Highlands or Isles, they have a noticeably distinct, Gaelicised accent. Granted, such things are being increasingly normalised these days, but I am acquainted with a couple of twenty year old Lewisers who still sound quite different, with the result that non-Scots have occasionally mistaken them for Irish.

(That said, I've been mistaken for Irish, and I sound like I'm from Leeds. Some people just aren't very bright.)

Welsh isn't much relevant either. Though British dialects survived in a little part of Scotland longer than most areas of England, it's not something I'd think particularly relevant to "Lowland Scots". Gaelic has more recent history, much more recent history, in every part of Scotland than Welsh ... and Norse has, less generally, too.
I didn't say that it did. I said that the Britons of Strathclyde were of a related language and ethnicity to the Britons of Wales, and would be considered, by most of their contemporaries, to be approximately the same people, much as the the Gaels of Scotland and Ireland were considered to be much the same.
 
But some were!
Yeah, mostly the Gaelic-speakers among them.
My point exactly. The Norsemen themselves were illiterate except for a few scribes... and they often used captured priests and monks -from Ireland or wherever else they could be found- as scribes.
But writing wasn't very necessary for everyday life if their sagas are any guide. Writing is almost never mentioned.
 
If memory serves me right Iceland was well known long before it was settled. I'm quite sure I heard that the first settlers on the island were "Irish"/Gaelic monks/hermits who searched solitude. I believe there is archaeological evidence for this, as small bells used by Irish monks dated well before the Viking era have been found around the island. they were in for a little surprise though.

When Harald started his Norwegian grand king ambitions many of his enemies fled to Iceland and slowly but surely there would be enough people on the island to form a proper society.

I guess they would bring their family and their "hird" (their soldiers) but hardly girlfriends for the hird. Since Norway was a bad option they would probably trade more with the British isles and one can easily assume the men would find girls they liked on these trips.

Making the women leave for a life on Iceland can not have been easy though since women in both societies were very free to chose their husbands and to divorce them if they were no good. Clearly Vikings were hunks.
 
Making the women leave for a life on Iceland can not have been easy though since women in both societies were very free to chose their husbands and to divorce them if they were no good. Clearly Vikings were hunks.
Or they only got the real uggos. :mischief:
 
What's wrong with being Norwegian?
 
I was using broad approximations. It is true to say that Gaelic culture dominated in what is now known as the "Highlands", wile Anglo-Brythonic culture dominated in what is not the "Lowlands". Obviously, there are exceptions- Galloway was largely Gaelic, and the East was a jumble of Angles, Gaels and Picts- but for the sake of those not familiar with the geography of Scotland, the distinction is sufficient.

Well, like I said, the Highlands is a cultural construct not invented until later. In 1000 it is not a "jumble of Angles, Gaels and Picts" ... the Kingdom of Scotland in 1000, stretching from the Oykel to the Forth, was entirely Gaelic speaking as far as we know.

As a related point, while we prefer to call them Gaels, and to exaggerate their affinity to Ireland, they called themselves Albanach in their own language and Scoti in Latin. Before 1300, the demographic centre of Gaelic Scotland lay in the coastal regions between Fife and Ross (the kingdom's heartland was the Tay valley) ... Scotland's culture in that era was neither English Lowland nor Hibernicised Hebridean.

"Angles" ... by which you mean English ... lived in the Lothian and Borders region (about 5 % of the modern territory of Scotland) and were not part of Scotland as it was then.

Argyll and Inverness aren't very fair examples- both are on the borders of the Highlands, and so have tended to absorb neighbouring dialects, in this case Glaswegian and Doric, respectively. If you talk to someone from the West Highlands or Isles, they have a noticeably distinct, Gaelicised accent. Granted, such things are being increasingly normalised these days, but I am acquainted with a couple of twenty year old Lewisers who still sound quite different, with the result that non-Scots have occasionally mistaken them for Irish.

Basically, you are doing what many Scots with some knowledge of Scottish history do ... take Scotland as it was in the mid-18th century and eternalise it.

Gaelic is only spoken properly in the Outer Hebrides today, and that's been the case for the best part of a century. No accent in Scotland is "Gaelicised" except theirs ... otherwise accents are regional. People in Highland Perthshire have roughly the same accents as people in "Lowland" Perthshire.

I didn't say that it did. I said that the Britons of Strathclyde were of a related language and ethnicity to the Britons of Wales, and would be considered, by most of their contemporaries, to be approximately the same people, much as the the Gaels of Scotland and Ireland were considered to be much the same.

That is true. My point of contention is that this does not make this small region exception ... nor Welsh as we would think of it (but BRITISH!). All of the British Isles were or had been Celtic-speaking in the 1st millennium AD. Strathclyde didn't really last much longer than most other areas.

Gaelic and Welsh btw are similar, and were more similar in this period, kinda similar to Scots and English .... but more like Old English and Old Norse. It's important to understand that differences between Britons and Scots, as they are differentiated in the sources, may be more literary than linguistic. :)
 
Actually, 'Welsh' means 'foreigner':

The English name Wales originates from the Germanic words Walh (singular) and Walha (plural), meaning "foreigner" or "stranger". The Ænglisc-speaking Anglo-Saxons used the term Waelisc when referring to the Celtic Britons, and Wēalas when referring to their lands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales#Etymology
 
Yeah, mostly the Gaelic-speakers among them.

My point exactly. The Norsemen themselves were illiterate except for a few scribes... and they often used captured priests and monks -from Ireland or wherever else they could be found- as scribes.
But writing wasn't very necessary for everyday life if their sagas are any guide. Writing is almost never mentioned.
That's not really my point my point is we have written documents of the initial settlement of a major landmass, something I don't think exists elsewhere.
 
If memory serves me right Iceland was well known long before it was settled. I'm quite sure I heard that the first settlers on the island were "Irish"/Gaelic monks/hermits who searched solitude. I believe there is archaeological evidence for this, as small bells used by Irish monks dated well before the Viking era have been found around the island. they were in for a little surprise though.

When Harald started his Norwegian grand king ambitions many of his enemies fled to Iceland and slowly but surely there would be enough people on the island to form a proper society.

I guess they would bring their family and their "hird" (their soldiers) but hardly girlfriends for the hird. Since Norway was a bad option they would probably trade more with the British isles and one can easily assume the men would find girls they liked on these trips.

Making the women leave for a life on Iceland can not have been easy though since women in both societies were very free to chose their husbands and to divorce them if they were no good. Clearly Vikings were hunks.
Iceland was known at least as far back as the wars of the Diadochi. There were Greek explorers from Massillia (Marseilles) who described a land at around that area. Iceland is commonly considered to be the mythical "Thule" described in ancient texts. Of course, all of this may have been disproven in the twenty years since this historical atlas I'm looking at was printed.

As for the Vikings getting their women, I believe they did it in the time-honoured Australian way. SNATCH AND RUN, Y'ALL!
 
Actually, 'Welsh' means 'foreigner':

The English name Wales originates from the Germanic words Walh (singular) and Walha (plural), meaning "foreigner" or "stranger". The Ænglisc-speaking Anglo-Saxons used the term Waelisc when referring to the Celtic Britons, and Wēalas when referring to their lands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales#Etymology

I think "stranger" would be the more correct of the two in this context. The Welsh were native and the Germanic newcomers - foreigners! - certainly knew that.
 
Actually, 'Welsh' means 'foreigner':

The English name Wales originates from the Germanic words Walh (singular) and Walha (plural), meaning "foreigner" or "stranger". The Ænglisc-speaking Anglo-Saxons used the term Waelisc when referring to the Celtic Britons, and Wēalas when referring to their lands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales#Etymology


It means more something more like "Roman", than "foreigner" or "stranger". The ancient Germans only use it for Romance speakers/inhabitants of the Roman Empire ... they never use the word for Finns or Slavs for instance.
 
That's not really my point my point is we have written documents of the initial settlement of a major landmass, something I don't think exists elsewhere.
The first settlement -besides exploration- would have been by the Papar.
Iceland was known at least as far back as the wars of the Diadochi. There were Greek explorers from Massillia (Marseilles) who described a land at around that area. Iceland is commonly considered to be the mythical "Thule" described in ancient texts. Of course, all of this may have been disproven in the twenty years since this historical atlas I'm looking at was printed.

As for the Vikings getting their women, I believe they did it in the time-honoured Australian way. SNATCH AND RUN, Y'ALL!

I think "stranger" would be the more correct of the two in this context. The Welsh were native and the Germanic newcomers - foreigners! - certainly knew that.
Ironically, the English can call you a foreigner to your face in your own country, especially older people. No kidding.
It means more something more like "Roman", than "foreigner" or "stranger". The ancient Germans only use it for Romance speakers/inhabitants of the Roman Empire ... they never use the word for Finns or Slavs for instance.
Do the ancient Germans still exist? ;)

The Welsh don't speak a Romance language... Celtic languages are quite different from the Romance family.

I know that the word 'slav' has the same origin as 'slave', but what about the Finns?
 
Do the ancient Germans still exist? ;)

If you are talking about now, then it means someone from the Principality of Wales. :p

The Welsh don't speak a Romance language... Celtic languages are quite different from the Romance family.

Thanks for the info, Takhisis. :crazyeye:

The British Welsh are unique among non-Romance-speakers in being called by the term. It's explained by the fact that it was a term for inhabitants of the Roman Empire, who were the Welsh in Britain. The "Welsh" first encountered in south-eastern Britain may indeed have been Romance speakers. Some historians believe that the area of the earliest English settlement went from Latin to English rather than Celtic to English.

In German, until recently, Welschland was the term for Italy or Italy-France(-Iberia). The word was also borrowed into Slavic, producing terms like Wallachia, Vlach and the word for Italy/Italy-France-Iberia in the medieval Slavic language (e.g. modern Polish, Włochy).

I know that the word 'slav' has the same origin as 'slave', but what about the Finns?

Slave is derived from the word for Slav, which is from the early and high medieval Slavic language.

Finn is an early term, probably exonymic in origin as it was later:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phinnoi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenni
It was the Old Norse term for people we now call Lapps, and for related people who lived farther south.
 
Back
Top Bottom