# All Nordic languages: jo / jú



## Joannes

Dag allemaal,

For the moment, I don't have access to sources I should have access to and I was hoping you could help me. I'm wondering about the origin of the 'contrastive yesses' in your languages, I mean the 'yes' particles answering negative questions: *jo* in Norwegian/Danish/Swedish and *jú* in Icelandic. Were they in origin simply emphatic pronunciations of *ja* (Icelanders, imagine your accent aigu)? Or what? 

Thank you in advance!


----------



## DieuEtMonDroit

I am not an expert in phonetic development so I'm afraid you'll have to wait for one of them to answer your question. Meanwhile I can tell you that there is a corresponding word in french. _Ja_ being _Oui _and _jo_ being _si_.


----------



## Joannes

DieuEtMonDroit said:


> I am not an expert in phonetic development so I'm afraid you'll have to wait for one of them to answer your question. Meanwhile I can tell you that there is a corresponding word in french. _Ja_ being _Oui _and _jo_ being _si_.


Yeah, thanks, there's others, although it largely seems to be confined to Indo-European languages.

I just read that Icelandic *jú* is the descendant of a particle *jaur* or *jur* that came to be used for positive/disagreeing answers to negative questions in the 15th century. It only makes me more curious about the origin of *jo* in the other Nordic languages...


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Joannes said:


> It only makes me more curious about the origin of *jo* in the other Nordic languages...


The origin of *jo* in Swedish is debated, but the NE* claims that it's probably derived from *ja* and dates back to around the 15th century.

/Wilma

*=Nationalencyclopedin


----------



## Joannes

Thank you, Wilma, for looking that up for me.  Did the NE also mention something about the other theories?


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Joannes said:


> Did the NE also mention something about the other theories?


No, but the SAOB* did, i.e. the same as NE and, as an alternative, low German heritage (io), i.e. same origin as *ju*, the little adverb you insert in a declarative sentence to stress that something is already known, or that you expect agreement. Example: 
Arnold Schwarzenegger var *ju* kroppsbyggare innan han blev skådespelare. = _[We all know that] Arnold Schwarzenegger was a body builder before he became an actor._

I am often annoyed that *ju* does not have a direct translation equivalent in English!

/Wilma
*Svenska Akademins Ordbok


----------



## sdr083

I must admit that I had never thought about the origin of *jo*, but I do agree that it's useful and a bit annoying when I can't find an equivalent in other languages .  



Joannes said:


> I just read that Icelandic *jú* is the descendant of a particle *jaur* or *jur* that came to be used for positive/disagreeing answers to negative questions in the 15th century.


The Norwegian dictionary says the origin is norse _jaur_, which fits with my idea that the origin in Norwegian must be the same as in Icelandic.  In my dialect of Norwegian, which is generally rather archaic and has features in common with Icelandic, it's actually pronounced [jeu].  In Nynorsk it can also be written *jau*.


----------



## Joannes

Wilma_Sweden said:


> No, but the SAOB* did, i.e. the same as NE and, as an alternative, low German heritage (io), i.e. same origin as *ju*, the little adverb you insert in a declarative sentence to stress that something is already known, or that you expect agreement. Example:
> Arnold Schwarzenegger var *ju* kroppsbyggare innan han blev skådespelare. = _[We all know that] Arnold Schwarzenegger was a body builder before he became an actor._


Thank you! Not a likely theory, though.



Wilma_Sweden said:


> I am often annoyed that *ju* does not have a direct translation equivalent in English!


... or many other languages.  I agree, modal particles rule! 



sdr083 said:


> The Norwegian dictionary says the origin is norse _jaur_, which fits with my idea that the origin in Norwegian must be the same as in Icelandic. In my dialect of Norwegian, which is generally rather archaic and has features in common with Icelandic, it's actually pronounced [jeu]. In Nynorsk it can also be written *jau*.


 
Very interesting. I agree with you that the origin for Norwegian and Icelandic should be the same. But then I'm still not sure what to believe for Danish/Swedish *jo*. Would it have had a different development?! You Norsemen rather tend to have things in common, don't you?


----------



## In Search Of

Hi,
I have'nt looked this up but I'd find it hard to believe that they shouldn't have the same origin. About 100 years ago Norwegian and Danish were the same and before that Norwegian and Icelandic were the same so...

Check this out: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsk_språk#Historie


----------



## sdr083

I wouldn't say that Danish and Norwegian were the same just because Norwegian was written with the Danish orthography...  I do agree that it's very unlikely that *jo* should have different origins in Norwegian, Icelandish, Swedish and Danish.  However, reading the info from the Norwegian dictionary again, I realized that it actually gives two different origins, one Norse and one German, for different uses of the word (look at *II *in Bokmål).


----------



## In Search Of

sdr083 said:


> I wouldn't say that Danish and Norwegian were the same just because Norwegian was written with the Danish orthography...



Neida. Bokmålsbruker jeg vet du

Men jeg prøvde bare å si det samme som deg, disse språkene har utviklet seg sammen - selv om noen selvfølgelig kan ha blitt mer påvirket av andre språk oppigjennom.


----------

