What I Learned From Watching You Watch Old Norse

One of the big highlights (and surprises!) of this project was that Jackson Crawford agreed to join the episode. If you know his work, you know he usually does solo videos — clear, structured, and filmed in one take, often from the mountains of Wyoming or Colorado. This format was very different: more collaborative, more unpredictable, and with multiple speakers trying to decode a long-dead language together. Jackson isn’t a fluent speaker of Old Norse — and to be clear, no one truly is — but he generously stepped into a new kind of challenge.

Instead of the typical “mutual intelligibility” format we’ve used before (where speakers guess words based on live descriptions and questions in their native languages), we adjusted the setup to better fit Jackson’s expertise and comfort. He prepared a set of Old Norse sentences — short, realistic, and varied — and our participants (from Norway, Denmark, and Iceland) tried to translate, comment on, or recognize words from them. The shared language for discussion was English, unlike our other episodes where everyone sticks to their mother tongue. Still, Jackson opened the video with a full introduction spoken entirely in Old Norse — giving viewers a chance to hear the rhythm of the language, set the mood, and immediately hook into the soundscape of a thousand years ago.

What surprised me most wasn’t how much or how little people understood — it was why they thought they understood it, or didn’t. One Norwegian viewer said bluntly:

“Being Norwegian, the Norwegian guy is totally lost. I didn’t understand everything, but I would say any other Norwegian would be about as good as the Dane.”

That line set the tone for dozens of comments unpacking why comprehension varied — not just between countries, but within them. Suddenly the thread turned into a debate about dialects, exposure, and even what it means to be “good at understanding” a language you’ve never learned.

Some users from western Norway argued their dialects were closer to Icelandic — and by extension, Old Norse — due to historical ties and preserved vocabulary. One wrote:

“Many of our words are more similar to Icelandic while eastern dialects are more similar to Danish.”

But others pushed back, challenging what they saw as folk linguistics or regional pride:

“That’s just a myth. It’s more about whether you’ve been exposed to different accents, or if you’ve read anything about language history. Dialect alone doesn’t make you understand more.”

In this way, the comment section became a kind of collective seminar, where lived experience, historical fact, and local bias collided — and, remarkably, mostly in a respectful way.

There was also a fascinating conversation around mutual intelligibility. Some Danish and Swedish speakers proudly noted how much they understood — not always of the Old Norse, but of each other. Others were more modest or surprised by how much they didn’t get, even when they expected to.

One viewer nailed the complexity of the whole idea:

“This is more about how good you are at connecting the dots, understanding typical language evolution, and interpreting root words — not necessarily about how close your native language is.”

That’s the kind of comment I end up thinking about long after I close the YouTube tab. It reminds me that language comprehension isn’t just about vocabulary — it’s about pattern recognition, cultural exposure, and even curiosity.

One of the most touching parts of making this episode was seeing how emotionally invested people were — not just in the language, but in what it represented. Old Norse isn’t just a “dead” language for many viewers. It’s a thread that connects them to their ancestors, to their region, or even just to a shared curiosity about where words come from.

Some wrote about hearing echoes of their grandparents’ dialect in the Old Norse lines. Others were surprised at how familiar it sounded, even if they couldn’t translate it. One comment stuck with me:

“As an American who barely understands German, I still found this oddly moving. Like I was watching a linguistic ghost of English.”

That gave me chills.

It reminded me why I do this. Not to quiz people. Not to impress anyone. But to create these moments where languages — and people — can surprise each other. I’m not a teacher in these videos. I’m not the expert in the room. I’m the one standing to the side, asking, “Did you hear that? What do you make of it?” And then watching as the answers unfold in real time — and in your comments.

So, thank you. Whether you’re a linguist, a native speaker, or just someone who clicked on the video out of curiosity — you made this episode what it was. Your insights, your disagreements, your jokes about birds — all of it shapes how I think about language, and what I want to explore next.