BLOOMFIELD CRITIQUE
With Bloomfield having all those language credentials, there remains a puzzle. For many examples, he cited Algonquin "words," which are really Norse phrases with a main Norse word used with Norse pronouns, adjectives, and other words. Why did he not recognize that the core Algonquin syllables were free form Norse words?
A 1999 Norwegian "...pocket dictionary for tourists..." (Gabrielsen) lists twenty-two Norse words with similar sounds and meanings for thirty-six Algonquin words used by Bloomfield for exanples. When Old Norse dictionaries are used, thirty-four Norse words (94%) appear to be equivalent to Algonquin words.
So the data do show there is something "to note about the relationship" between Norse and Algonquian languages. But Bloomfield did not note it. Because he did not note the relationship does not "prove" the evidence was not there. The evidence is still there, supporting a hypothesis that Bloomfield overlooked the relationship between the Algonquin and Old Norse languages.
On the following pages are Bloomfield's chosen Algonquin "words," (really phrases). They are compared to the equivalent primary Norse word. The pronouns and adjectives that Bloomfield, and others, incorporated into the "root" Algonquin "word" have not been defined here for simplicity.
Why did Bloomfield not recognize that he was dealing with Algonquin phrases and that the core Algonquin syllables were really Norse words?
