Talk:Old Norse

Suggesting major changes to this book
This book is far from complete. Looking at the current contents, I observed two points:


 * This book is only about grammar.
 * This book is not aimed at teaching Old Norse for beginners.

Let me explain each of the above two points in detail.

Only about grammar
A book with the title Old Norse should not just be about the grammar. Of course, explanation of the grammar is necessary, but aside from that, there are other contents expected to be covered in the book, such as the history of the language, sample texts and translations, and possibly readings about the culture of the land where the language was spoken.
 * My original idea is to get the grammar in first. Once that's in place, and correct, then start adding in lessons for beginners to help teach them the language.  --James (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Not for beginners
In my opinion, from the only three chapters with actual contents (Adjectives and Adverbs, Alphabet and Pronunciation, Pronouns), it is hard to see that the author is trying to introduce to a beginner of Old Norse, a language previously unfamiliar to him.

Suggestion
Although the two previous points I made may seem critical, I did not mean that. I think it is fine for a book to cover only grammar of a language and not target beginners, as long as that is its author's original intention. Therefore I propose to write this book into something more like a reference grammar. What do you think? If it's okay, I might start editing right away.

Greek Fellows (discuss • contribs) 13:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I left a note on the user talk of the earlier editor. Fwiw, the strategy you propose sounds reasonable to me.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi guys. My intent is to get the grammar in and correct, and once that's done, put in the lessons.  That way anyone using the lessons will have the references to refer to during the lessons.  --James (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds eminently reasonable to me. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)