Saud, m. (Fl. Sauder), et Faar. Egent-
lig et Dyr af Faareſlægten, uden Henſyn
til Kjøn; imidlertid er det kun i Fleertal
at denne Betydning er herſkende, medens
derimod „ein Saud” ſædvanlig bruges om
Hundyret alene (ligeſom Søyda), uagtet
Ordet har Hankjøns Form. Meſt alm.
Sau; ellers Saud, Nfj. Sdm., Saug,
Solør, Toten (Vardal), So (o’), el. Saa,
Øſterd. G.N. saudr; Sv. Dial. ſåd, ſau.
ſö (ſ. Rietz 568). Uegentlig bruges Saud
ogſaa om et meget godmodigt og føieligt
Menneske, tildeels med Begreb af Eenfol-
dighed eller Sløvhed. (Jf. Godſaud). I
Sammensætning deels Saud (Sau), deels
Saude (Saue, Saua); ſjeldnere Sauds.
Saaledes: Saudbukk, m. en Væder. (Kun
paa Øſtl.). Saudfjos (oo), n. Faare-
stald. Saudgarde (Saugare), m. Rum
for Faar i et Huus. (Paa Øſtl. Saud-
, m.). Saudhage, m. Græsgang
for Faar. Saudekjøt, n. Faarekjød.
Saudekvi, f. Faarefold. Saudelag, n.
Faarenatur; Eenfoldighed, Sløvhed ꝛc.
Saudelit (i’), m. Uldens naturlige Farve.
Saudmjølk, f. Faaremælk. Saudſkap,
n. Faareskikkelse. Saudſkinn, n. Faare-
skind. Saudſkjæra, f. Uldsax. Saud-
, n. Faarerace. Saudſykja, f. Faare-
ſygdom; Skab ꝛc. Saudtalle, m. Faaremøg.
- Ivar A. Aasen, Norsk Ordbog (1873)[1]

This user is currently working on
Cleaning up Nynorsk entries and etymology.

nn Denne brukaren har norsk som morsmål og skriv nynorsk.
no Denne skribenten har norsk som morsmål.
nb Denne brukeren har norsk som morsmål og skriver bokmål.
fo-2 Hesin brúkarin dugir føroyskt hampuliga væl.
non-1 Sjá nótr skrifar norrœnt með veikri kunnandi.
Search user languages or scripts
This user's native script is the Latin alphabet.

This user has an advanced understanding of the Runic alphabet.
Search user languages or scripts

Hello. I’m Eiliv m (pronounced /²æɪ̯liːv/, [ˈæ̌ɪ̯ːˌlîˑʋ], Old Norse Eilífr, Æilīfʀ, Proto-Norse *Ainalībaʀ, *Aiwalībaʀ) and I mostly contribute on the Nynorsk (‘Modern Norwegian’) entries, as well as Norwegian dialects and etymology. I usually make minor edits to the etymology overviews, to make them more precise and not skipping any steps. They tend to be quite simplified, saying nb. bløt comes from non. blautr, when it’s really from da. blød, from oda. bløthær, where it’s of the same Proto-Norse origin as the Old Norse word.

I hope to be able to make more entries for traditional Nynorsk and dialects such as Setesdalsk.

Other sitesEdit

Pages I’ve madeEdit

Of the pages I’ve made, a few have been forms used in the Setesdal dialect:

I’ve made pages for other dialects as well, but the amount of source material varies a lot. The Setesdal dialect has its own website, so you’d come a long way just by filling in information from there. I mostly make entries for dialect forms when they show a peculiar or unexpected development that can be useful to know about when studying Norwegian. For example golf > góv and holmi > hómi in the Setesdal dialect(s). This shows a similar development as Faroese and Icelandic in that the o is lengthened before an l + a consonant. The peculiar thing about Setesdal, however, is that the l has disappeared as a result.

Issues with the etymologyEdit

As it’s usually seen, terms in what’s called Norwegian tend to be put underneath the ancestor of Norwegian, Old Norse. However, it may be simply misleading when said term is derived from Danish. This is an issue I find even in greater publishings, such as the etymological dictionary by Yann de Caprona, Norsk etymologisk ordbok. Forms like hun (she) are treated like direct descendants of Old Norse (hón), when they’re unquestionably from Danish, as can be seen in the continuous use throughout the history of Norwegian-Danish (and the total absence in genuine Norwegian dialects). Covering up the history of a word does not fit in a dictionary, at all, and immediately invalidates it as a source.

One of my goals is to correct some of these imprecise etymologies. It should ideally show the journey of the word instead of just the origin and end product, especially when the alleged origin was a different dialect as well. F. ex. lyd (sound) coming from hljóð when it’s rather from *hliūþ through Danish liud, lyd.

General ideas and issuesEdit

Currently, there are three Norwegian languages on Wiktionary, Norwegian, Norwegian Nynorsk, and Norwegian Bokmål. The first one is not to be used, and the only entries left are names which are not language-specific. The second one is used for Nynorsk, and Norwegian dialectal forms, overall Norwegian that does not descend from Danish and the Norwegian-Danish written (and spoken) tradition. The last one is for Bokmål, which is the Danish-derived written language that through time has gotten various words and forms either directly from the spoken languages, or Nynorsk. It is, however, still a variant of Danish, albeit with a large amount of Norwegian additions.

I think it would be appropriate to gather Nynorsk and Norwegian dialects under Norwegian, as there isn’t a clear border between these two. Nynorsk is the Norwegian language in its normalised written form. Compare for instance the Danish language used on the Faroe Islands which is called Gøtudansk, while the Faroese language itself, with both dialects and normalised written language, is Faroese (not *Nýføroyskt).

Old NorseEdit

Since it’s not technically incorrect that all the modern forms come from an earlier stage of North Germanic, it’s not true when it comes to the West Old Norse forms commonly associated with “Old Norse”. Swedish djur (animal) does not derive from dýr, for instance. Pretty obvious, you’d say, because why would eu turn into ý, then again? However, this is how it was arranged on Wiktionary, despite the proper Old East Norse form being diūʀ. The fault lies in common dictionaries who take these shortcuts.

Focus and interestsEdit

I’m particularly invested in the Norwegian language, i.e. the traditional spoken language and Nynorsk, and its etymology. It’s easily forgotten, but not gone, and I want it to gain more representation on Wiktionary. As far as I know, Nynorsk and Bokmål used to have the same entries back in 2008, before they were split into separate languages. I’m happy for the split, clarifying that these aren’t simply slight variations, but two separate (written) languages with different etymologies. It gives the opportunity to make good, focused and informative entries for both of them with distinct definitions and etymologies. Not a misleading merge where søkka (sink) and synke both stand as descendants of søkkva (which would be “impossible”).

Currently working onEdit

I’m currently working on cleaning up the Nynorsk entries, as it vary a lot which form or style is picked as main variety. In verbs, for instance, you may find one ending in -ja, but pointing to a form with -e and no j, while another entry may have -e and point to -ja. Then some entries with -e point to -je and vice versa. I’d like it to be more consistent, with the traditional and common -ja forms treated as the main one. I suspect that a lot of the more Bokmål like forms stem from before the split, when it was all just “Norwegian”.

There seems to have been a lot of misconceptions about the various forms in Nynorsk. As there is an official standard for use in education and government, the forms that are not included are sometimes marked as “defunct”, “obsolete” or “archaic”. This is quite misleading and a good dictionary should ideally document all words in the language equally, possibly with a note about the standard used in education and government. It should not, however, treat them as anything less than the included forms, or as if they’ve gone out of use.


When a form is taken out of the official norm by a reform, it doesn’t mean the word is removed from the language as a whole. Therefore, I’m proposing to use the template {{nn-pre}} inside a {{lb}} instead of {{nn-former}}. All relevant information will still be there, but as a label, then the word will be marked as an alternative instead of a removed form. It will also make it easier to add other labels such as dialectal (which the forms often are as well).

The pre tag will simply show it was part of the official standard before a certain year, while not using too much space or implying it’s more than a matter of officiality. To say it’s “superseded” by something also gives the impression of a development, similar to how rafn superseded hrafn, but it’s not that simple. I would prefer if it rather called the form an alternative of the official one, rather than the predecessor.

Standardised Norwegian pronunciationsEdit

It’s been quite the mystery for me for a long time how to best write down a generic Norwegian pronunciation that does not simplify the pronunciation, nor show misleading sounds that aren’t what they’re meant to symbolise.

To figure out how to best describe the pronunciation in an as objective way as possible, I’ve tried to find out how people have traditionally described the general Norwegian sounds, instead of choosing a dialect to base it on myself. The tricky part is to encode the phonetic alphabet we’ve formerly used in Norway, Norvegia. After doing so, I’ve looked at how linguists like Hans Ross have transcribed various dialects to see what’s most common. As expected, what he called general dialectal sounds were different from how the sounds of the capital were transcribed, and there would thus be a few differences between general Norwegian IPA transcriptions, and the IPA transcriptions of Urban East Norwegian. Not only are some phonemes realised differently, but many Norwegian dialects have more phonemes than central East Norwegian dialects. An example is Trøndsk with different realisation of /ɽn/ and /rn/, where the first is retroflex [ɳ], while the second is retracted [n̠]. In Oslo, these are both either [n̠] or [ɳ].

I’ve made a simple pronunciation standard at Appendix:Norwegian Nynorsk pronunciation, which could be the base for phonetic transcriptions. Since it’s quite narrow, it should ideally be accompanied by a simpler phonemic transcription. For instance, /²vɛsta/, [²ʋɛ̝stɐ̞] (vestan) and /ɡolv/, [ɡɞ̞lʋ] or /ɡoɽv/, [ɡɞ̞ɽʋ] (golv).


  1. ^ “Saud” in Ivar Aasen (1873) Norsk Ordbog med dansk Forklaring