# Norwegian: What does Oslo mean?



## franknagy

Why was Christiania renamed to Oslo?


----------



## Sepia

They didn't want the reference to a Danish king after gaining independence.

The origin of the name is not 100% clear.


----------



## basslop

Sepia is correct. Just to make sure we get everything right here: Oslo "started" ca. 1000 - where "gamle Oslo" (Old Oslo) is today. King Cristian IV founded his (part of the) town where the central area is now, aka Kvadraturen, as Christiania/Kristiania in 1627. It was renamed to Oslo in 1897.

There has been many suggestions to the origin of the name Oslo, but as Sepia also says, it is not clear. Is there anyone with historic knowledge who can tell us more about the name?


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Oslo is (probably) from Norse _áss_ = deity and _ló_ = river meadow. The inferred meaning is "the meadow of the gods", and is most likely a reference to a cultic site.
 The first element was probably slightly nasalized, since it was a contraction of _*ansu_. The medieval spelling was Anslo and Ósló, and Dutch maps as late as 1600 give uses the spelling Anslo (the Medieval Latin form was Ansloa). It is likely it was pronounced "õn-slå", and as late as the 19th century, the local pronunciation was "åps-lå", where a short /p/-sound acted as a vestige of the then-lost nasal vowel.


----------



## Gavril

NorwegianNYC said:


> Oslo is (probably) from Norse _áss_ = deity and _ló_ = river meadow. The inferred meaning is "the meadow of the gods", and is most likely a reference to a cultic site.
> The first element was probably slightly nasalized, since it was a contraction of _*ansu_. The medieval spelling was Anslo and Ósló, and Dutch maps as late as 1600 give uses the spelling Anslo (the Medieval Latin form was Ansloa). It is likely it was pronounced "õn-slå", and as late as the 19th century, the local pronunciation was "åps-lå", where a short /p/-sound acted as a vestige of the then-lost nasal vowel.



How early is the form _Anslo_ attested? I thought that the cluster -ns- was assimilated to -ss- (as in *_uns_ > _oss_, etc.) very early in the history of Norse.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

To answer the first question first: We know that Asgaut was appointed (by the Vatican) the first bishop of _Ansloia_ in 1070. Although the city was officially founded by Harald III 'Hardada' in 1048, traces of urban settlements in what is today the eastern parts of downtown Oslo seems to predate this by at least a hundred years. In fact, the king "founded" the city because there was already a sizable population at the site. What it was known as locally at the time, is anybody's guess, but it sounds reasonable, given the persistence of the name, that it was Anslo.

Second question: The mentioned assimilation process that took place in Norse, did in fact take place in the West Scandinavian dialects ("Western Norse") and much less in the Eastern varieties. Norwegian today is actually a composite language, since the eastern and southeastern dialects are descendants of East Scandinavian Norse (so are most Swedish dialects), whereas the western dialects were originally closer to modern-dat Faroese and Icelandic.

The assimilation (in your example -ns- > -ss-) was predominantly a western feature. This explains why Oslo was rendered Anslo (or probably more correctly /Ãnslo/) locally, whereas the chroniclers and saga-writers of West Norwegian and Icelandic stock rendered the name Ósló.


----------



## basslop

NorwegianNYC said:


> To answer the first question first: We know that Asgaut was appointed (by the Vatican) the first bishop of _Ansloia_ in 1070. Although the city was officially founded by Harald III 'Hardada' in 1048, traces of urban settlements in what is today the eastern parts of downtown Oslo seems to predate this by at least a hundred years. In fact, the king "founded" the city because there was already a sizable population at the site. What it was known as locally at the time, is anybody's guess, but it sounds reasonable, given the persistence of the name, that it was Anslo.
> 
> Second question: The mentioned assimilation process that took place in Norse, did in fact take place in the West Scandinavian dialects ("Western Norse") and much less in the Eastern varieties. Norwegian today is actually a composite language, since the eastern and southeastern dialects are descendants of East Scandinavian Norse (so are most Swedish dialects), whereas the western dialects were originally closer to modern-dat Faroese and Icelandic.
> 
> The assimilation (in your example -ns- > -ss-) was predominantly a western feature. This explains why Oslo was rendered Anslo (or probably more correctly /Ãnslo/) locally, whereas the chroniclers and saga-writers of West Norwegian and Icelandic stock rendered the name Ósló.



 Wow, this is very interesting for an amattuer in these subjects, NorwegianNYC. I really appreciate such additional information.


----------



## Ben Jamin

The town of Christiania was founded after old Oslo burned down in 1624. After the fire in 1624 people came back to Oslo and the place became gradually a suburb of Christiania.
Until 1925 the name Oslo continued to be used for the suburb. In 1925 (300 years after the foundation) Kristiania/Christiania was renamed Oslo, and Oslo became "Gamlebyen" (Old town).


----------



## franknagy

I have read a book about an (orphan?) child named Peik [Pete] who moved from Scandinavia to Germany in the 1920's.
I remember that* Christiania* was mentioned there.


----------



## Ben Jamin

franknagy said:


> I have read a book about an (orphan?) child named Peik [Pete] who moved from Scandinavia to Germany in the 1920's.
> I remember that* Christiania* was mentioned there.


It is explained in my post: "In 1925 Kristiania/Christiania was renamed Oslo ..."


----------



## Gavril

NorwegianNYC said:


> The assimilation (in your example -ns- > -ss-) was predominantly a western feature. This explains why Oslo was rendered Anslo (or probably more correctly /Ãnslo/) locally, whereas the chroniclers and saga-writers of West Norwegian and Icelandic stock rendered the name Ósló.



Just out of curiosity, what are some other examples of -_ns_ being retained (or the nasalization not disappearing) in East Norse? The standard "East Norse" languages seem to show the effects of a *-_ns_ > -(_s_)_s_ shift: Danish/Swedish _gås_ "goose", _os(s)_ "us".

(Until seeing this thread, I imagined that "Oslo" was based on *ós *"mouth of a river" + *ló* "meadow, glade", but maybe that's not compatible with the older "åps-lå" pronunciation that you mentioned.)


----------



## NorwegianNYC

I cannot (as of right now) think of other -ns- that are preserved. The reason it survived in Anslo is probably because it early on became a name, and was no longer an independent word - thus not exposed to the same processes. This combined with the fact that assimilation was weaker in the east. There are other examples of differences in degree of assimilation east and west. Eastern _kamp_ (fight, match) is the main form today, but western _kapp_ exists as well. The western _vott_ (mitten) has largely replaced eastern vante (which has taken a different meaning). Eastern _tenke_ (think) is today the more common form, but nynorsk retains _tykkje_, which is also the case with eastern _bandt_ (bound) and nynorsk _batt_.


----------



## Gavril

NorwegianNYC said:


> I cannot (as of right now) think of other -ns- that are preserved. The reason it survived in Anslo is probably because it early on became a name, and was no longer an independent word - thus not exposed to the same processes.



When you say "no longer an independent word", do you mean that neighboring communities would have known and used the name Anslo, and the residents of Anslo would have heard the "foreign" pronunciations frequently, making it harder for the sound change _ns_ > _(s)s_ to spread to this word?


----------



## NorwegianNYC

What I mean is that Anslo probably "froze" as a name, even if *ans became áss in all Scandinavian languages. This means the name was probably coined before the assimilation process.


----------



## Gavril

NorwegianNYC said:


> What I mean is that Anslo probably "froze" as a name, even if *ans became áss in all Scandinavian languages.



Through what mechanism would it have frozen? If _ns_ shifted to _ss_ in the speech of Anslo and all surrounding communities, I don't see what would have prevented the name _Anslo_ from participating in this change as well. (Other than perhaps hypercorrection motivated by writing.)


----------



## NorwegianNYC

It is fairly common that a name or place name retains elements no longer found in a language. For instance, Sunderland contains the element _sunder_, which is no longer exists in English, but originally meant "the land on the south side". If -ans- in Anslo was preserved because it was perceived as a name rather than a word, it would explain why it did not undergo the assimilation process until much later.


----------



## Gavril

NorwegianNYC said:


> It is fairly common that a name or place name retains elements no longer found in a language. For instance, Sunderland contains the element _sunder_, which is no longer exists in English, but originally meant "the land on the south side".



That's a case where an otherwise-rare *word* was preserved, not where a sound (or combination of sounds) failed to undergo an otherwise-universal sound change.

I've never heard of any general tendency for place names or other proper nouns to "escape" sound changes -- though sometimes a name can be hypercorrected to an older form, if this older form has been preserved somewhere (in writing, in the speech of neighboring groups, etc.).


----------



## franknagy

NorwegianNYC said:


> It is fairly common that a name or place name retains elements no longer found in a language. For instance, Sunderland contains the element _sunder_, which is no longer exists in English, but originally meant "the land on the south side". If -ans- in Anslo was preserved because it was perceived as a name rather than a word, it would explain why it did not undergo the assimilation process until much later.


It is absolutely true.
Vienna is named in Hungarian* as Bécs*. This word has no meaning in present Hungarian and it cannot be derived from Vindobona. Its probable examination is that the incoming Hungarian tribes ruled Lower Austria from 900 to 960 and they settled down in the uninhabited place of Vienna until Bavaria regained it and named as *Wien* using the Roman tradition.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Gavril said:


> That's a case where an otherwise-rare *word* was preserved, not where a sound (or combination of sounds) failed to undergo an otherwise-universal sound change.
> 
> I've never heard of any general tendency for place names or other proper nouns to "escape" sound changes -- though sometimes a name can be hypercorrected to an older form, if this older form has been preserved somewhere (in writing, in the speech of neighboring groups, etc.).


 Well, _sunder_ in Sunderland is not an (qv.) "otherwise-rare word". It is an early form of what became "southern". Had the city been named today, it would be called "Souther(n)land". 

When it comes to Oslo:
1)      The name ‘Oslo’ contains the elements _áss _(deity) and _ló_ (meadow)
2)      The element _áss_ is derived from Proto-Scandinavian *ansu-
3)      The name was constructed some time before the assimilation process was complete in East Scandinavian, since the -n- was retained. It is difficult to give a specific time, but Proto-Norse had developed into (Common) Norse before 800 AD.
4)      The mechanisms of the assimilation process created -ns- > -ss-, and -a- + -u- > -á-. However, as -ns- was retained in Anslo (for almost 800 years), and the only explanation is that Anslo early on lost its original meaning, and was treated as a name. It is not uncommon for names not to undergo the same transformative processes as other words. [The first element in the name Håvard is _hå-_. It means ‘high’ or ‘elevated’, and is akin to the modern-day Norwegian words _høy_ and _høg_, from Norse _há(r)_. In other words, the old element -hå- is preserved in the name, although lost in the language]


----------



## Gavril

NorwegianNYC said:


> Well, _sunder_ in Sunderland is not an (qv.) "otherwise-rare word". It is an early form of what became "southern".



What's your source for this claim? If we accept that  _sunder_- is related to the word _southern_ (rather than the _sunder_ seen in _assunder_ vel sim), that doesn't mean that one is the ancestor of the other. The pair could have come about through different accentuation (*_ð_ > _d_ via Verner's law).



> When it comes to Oslo:
> 1)      The name ‘Oslo’ contains the elements _áss _(deity) and _ló_ (meadow)
> 2)      The element _áss_ is derived from Proto-Scandinavian *ansu-
> 3)      The name was constructed some time before the assimilation process was complete in East Scandinavian, since the -n- was retained. It is difficult to give a specific time, but Proto-Norse had developed into (Common) Norse before 800 AD.
> 4)      The mechanisms of the assimilation process created -ns- > -ss-, and -a- + -u- > -á-. However, as -ns- was retained in Anslo (for almost 800 years), and the only explanation is that Anslo early on lost its original meaning, and was treated as a name.



Or that it was hypercorrected to _Anslo _(at least in some registers) because the written form retained the nasal, or because of the influence of neighboring dialects in which the -_ns_- > -_ss_- shift hadn't occurred.



> It is not uncommon for names not to undergo the same transformative processes as other words. [The first element in the name Håvard is _hå-_. It means ‘high’ or ‘elevated’, and is akin to the modern-day Norwegian words _høy_ and _høg_, from Norse _há(r)_. In other words, the old element -hå- is preserved in the name, although lost in the language



Hellquist's Swedish etymological dictionary (link) states that Swedish _hög_ and Norw. _høg _descend from earlier *_hauG_-, whereas Old Norse/Icelandic _hár_ reflects *_hauh_-. So the two are different Verner variants, rather than one being the ancestor of the other.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

1) Asunder is from OE _sundrian_, from Proto-Germanic _sundor_ "to tear apart" (PIE *sene- = separate), akin to Norw. "gå sund" = fall apart. _Sunder_ in Sunderland is from OE soender = southern (akin to Danish sønder = southern).

2) (qv.) "Or that it was hypercorrected to _Anslo (at least in some registers) because the written form retained the nasal, or because of the influence of neighboring dialects in which the -ns- > -ss- shift hadn't occurred."
_Entirely possible!!!! Truth is that we do not know how the name was pronounced, but we do know that the local pronunciation was different from that of the Icelandic Saga-writers, who spelled it Ósló. The -n- in Anslo might just be a nasal marker. In any case, it is an indication that the name preserved a previous pronunciation more accurately than the word _ass_ did. As late as 1600, the name was rendered _Anslo_ on Dutch maps - 800 years after the assimilation process, and 400 years after the word _ass_ went out of the language.

3) In this particular instance Hellquist is mistaken. See this: http://www.nob-ordbok.uio.no/perl/ordbok.cgi?OPP=høy&bokmaal=+&ordbok=bokmaal As for that matter, Old Norse _hauh_ is a form of _hár_. There is no contradiction here!


----------

