--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Blanc Voden" <uoden@...> wrote:
>
> "fátt var um með þeim Hrúti um samfarar"
>
> It is not question of Genitive.
Okay.
> It is the conclusion found in later generations Dictionary that not
> correct.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here. Which
dictionary are you talking about? Which conclusion? Are you saying
that you just don't believe what any of the dictionaries and grammar
books available to us say, namely that the noun 'samför' had a plural
'samfarar' in Old Norse? If so, could you please explain to us why
you think that all of these scholars must be wrong.
> The female noun "samfarir" is same not same as the adjective
> "samfarar".
I don't see any reason to doubt the opinion of the experts that
'samfarar' is here an accusative plural feminine noun, but there seems
to me to be quiet a few problems with interpreting it as an adjective.
Just to clarify, are you saying that the form 'samfar' is used
nowadays in Icelandic as an adjective. Would you personally use it
with this meaning? Can you give us any clear and unambiguous examples
in which an adjective 'samfarr' is used in Old Norse? By this, I mean
examples which can't be interpreted in any other way than as an
adjective. I don't remember seeing this adjective before in the Old
Norse/Icelandic texts that I've read. I can't find it in the Old
Norse/Icelandic or Modern Icelandic dictionaries which are available
to me at the moment. There is an indeclinable form 'samfara'
"travelling together" listed in the Cleasby / Vigfússon dictionary,
but they don't mention any figurative/metaphorical uses [
http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/png/oi_cleasbyvigfusson/b0511.png ]. There
is no mention of 'samfarr' in Fritzner's dictionary either [
http://www.edd.uio.no/perl/search/search.cgi?appid=86&tabid=1275 ]. I
must add that I'm just learning, and my knowledge the language is
still quite rudimentary; of course, I can't say for sure that this
word didn't exist in Old Norse, but it seems strange that none of the
dictionaries would mention such a word if it was so widely used in prose.
> "Samfarir" See "Sem Þú farir" :As you go"and
> "Fara saman" :go together or to match
The second explanation seems better.
>
> like to they match in temperament/mood. To day nice couple go to gether
> and fit each other.
>
> That is "fara saman" the condition is named "Samfarir".
>
Yes.
> "Samfær" are "sam sinna" of same mind [sane] of
> agreement.
Yes. This is the adjective that I was aware of. You're right that
'samfær', in the modern standard spelling (='samfoerr' in the Old
Norse standard spelling used in the Norse Course lessons), is related
to the feminine noun 'samför', and to the verb 'fara' "to go". I'm
going to try now to explain what the relationship is between these two
words 'samför' and 'samfoerr' according to generally accepted
linguistic theory.
The difference in form is thought to be due to two sorts of sound
change involving vowels.
The first sound change is called Modern Icelandic 'hljóðskipti'
(neuter plural). In English we call it 'vowel gradation' or borrow
the German term 'ablaut'. This change goes back to
Proto-Indo-European. It was caused by a movable accent in
Proto-Indo-European, which led to changes in a vowel depending on how
it was stressed. The differences remained even after the stress was
fixed on the first syllable of the word in Proto-Germanic. This is
what produced the difference between the past and present of strong
verbs found in all the Germanic languages, including English (ride,
rode) and Icelandic (ríður, reið, riðu). But the effects of vowel
gradation are to be found in other classes of word too besides verbs.
The other sound change is called 'hljóðvarp' (neuter singular) in
Icelandic. In English we call it 'vowel mutation' or borrow the
German term 'umlaut'. This type of change happened at different
times, in most cases independently, in the various Germanic languages.
It involves a vowel changing in some way due to the influence of a
vowel in a following syllable. Often the vowel which caused the
change was lost in prehistoric times, before the individual Germanic
languages came to be written down.
In the following examples I used a colon [:] to indicate a long vowel
in reconstructed forms.
Proto-Norse *faran, *fariz, *fo:rum > ON fara, ferr, fórum
Proto-Norse *faru > ON för "journey"
Proto-Norse *sama-faro:z > ON samfarar, f.pl. "going together,
intercourse, relationship"
Proto-Norse *sama-fo:rijaz / -fo:riz > ON samfoerr "agreeing, running
alongside".
Are these concepts familiar to you? Do you agree with them?
> "Samfarar" logical notation for the later of euphony
> "samfærar".
I don't know what you mean here by "logical notation". I don't know
what you mean by "euphony" in this context. How would you write this
sentence in Icelandic? Did you have in mind the sound changes I've
just described, umlaut and ablaut? Or are you talking about something
completely different? In what way would either of these forms be more
euphonious (better sounding, easier to pronounce) than the other?
> "fátt var með þeim Hrúti um samfærar [nætur,
> stundir, legur, reiðar....
But the text we're working from doesn't say 'samfærar'. It says
'samfarar'. Similar passages in other sagas have a word 'samfarar'
which behaves like a noun, as far as I can see, and can apparently be
modified by an adjective of its own, as in the quote I mentioned from
Vápnfirðinga saga:
Samfarar þeira Höllu ok Brodd-Helga váru góðar
The syntactic construction you are proposing seems odd to me given
what I know about Old Norse. But the syntax seems perfectly normal if
we assume that it was a noun. Can you give us any similar examples
from the sagas, or other Old Norse literature, in which an adjective
is used in this way? Can you give us any examples in which the
unstated feminine plural noun is expressed, the noun that the supposed
adjective refers to? I'm guessing not, since you don't seem sure what
exactly this noun would be. In which case, wouldn't it be simpler to
see this 'samfarar' as a noun?
> Before Christianity good sex live was clearly considered natural demand.
>
> The question of begetting or they she give them an heir was the latest
> news.
Good.
> That gave question of opportunity or Færi.
Opportunity for what? What does "question of" mean? How does this
support your argument?
> "Færi saman"could go together. "Færa saman" is to
> bring to gether or to unite.
In the first example you use the past 3rd person subjunctive of the
verb 'fara' "go", right? And in the second example you use the weak
verb ON 'foera', modern spelling 'færa' "bring". I don't know what
point you are trying to make with these examples. How does this
support your theory that 'samfarar' in the quote we are discussing is
not a noun, but an adjective?
>
> Ólafur Hvítaskáld mentions that [the sound AÍ] æ [see
> B'ee], not naturally long
>
> [or orginally ] in the runes was used as remplacement for Au [öí]
> and Ó [oú] for sake of euphony. First literary noted for sake of
> etymology as oe or ae.
I don't understand. Maybe we'll come back to this topic...
> Note bene..
Latin "note well"
> The Latin oe [or oí>oj>oy] was said not of the runes
> before [not part of the morphology].
I don't understand.
>
> "Bón": Is nice begging but stronger is
> "Bónn">Boen>"Bæn": See prayer.
>
> Grönn> græn.
>
> Faur>Förr>Fær.
I don't understand. 'bón' and 'bæn' (ON boen) "request". 'grönn' is
the feminine nominative-accusative singular, and the neuter
nominative-accusative plural, of 'grannur' (ON grannr) "thin". 'græn'
(ON groen) is the feminine nominative-accusative singular, and neuter
nominative-accusative plural, of 'grænn' (ON groenn) "green". I don't
recognise 'förr' and 'faur'. What are they? (I suppose 'faur' would
be a normal manuscript spelling for 'för'; is this what you're
referring to?) 'fær', feminine, is sheep; or possible one of a number
of forms of the verbs 'fá' or 'færa'.
But what is your point? No one is doubting that words containing
these vowel differences can be related, by the various sound changes I
mentioned; but what does that have to do with whether 'samfarar' is a
noun here or, as you claim, and adjective. How does that prove your
theory?
>
> Thanks Uoden
>
> aí as in an-Aíceland.
>
> Samfærandi is convincing.
>
> Samfarrandi is ???
I don't understand.
>
> ir, or, ör, ar, ur, er: are the morphem syllables [I reckon]
I don't understand.
>
> rare: you say? sparse
I don't understand. Rare and sparse could perhaps be translated into
Icelandic as 'fágætur'. Is that what you meant? Why did you write
these words?
> I call them "miðmyndir" The irr, orr, örr,arr, urr, err:
> are Herr or Full pictures?
>
I don't understand. Isn't 'miðmynd' "middle voice", e.g. verb forms
such as 'farast', as opposed to 'fara'?
Llama Nom
> --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Uoden,
> >
> > If the word order had been 'fátt samfarar', certainly I would read
> > that as genitive, but since the word order in this instance is
> > actually 'fátt var um með þeim Hrúti um samfarar', I'm
> still inclined
> > to see it as accusative plural, since the preposition 'um' takes an
> > accusative complement, never genitive. In the older language,
> > 'samfarar' was nom./acc. plural, as well as genitive singular. As in
> > a number of other words, the old plural -ar has been replaced by -ir
> > in the modern language. One of many small changes.
> >
> > Compare:
> >
> > Samfarar þeirra Höllu og Brodd-Helga voru góðar
> (Vápnfirðinga saga).
> > They got on well together; they had a good relationship. Gwyn Jones:
> > "were very happy in their marriage". Nominative plural surely?
> >
> > Þjóðhildur vildi ekki halda samfarar við Eirík síðan er
> hún tók trú,
> > en honum var það mjög í móti (Eiríks saga rauða)
> "Th. didn't want to
> > have sex with E. after her conversion (to Christianity), and he wasn't
> > at all pleased about that." Accusative plural, I would have thought,
> > cf. the second definition given by Zoega for 'halda' + acc. "to hold,
> > keep, observe", e.g. a feast, holiday, laws, a practice. I don't know
> > of any reason why a genitive would be used here.
> >
> > > I see this as writing under rose: in clandestine.
> > > => They did not have sex at all.
> >
> > Yes, definitely, that's how I understood it. In English we might call
> > such an expression "an understatement". We too sometimes say 'not
> > much' when we mean 'none at all'. 'skrifa/tala undir rós' "to hint
> at
> > something [without actually saying it outright, without stating it
> > plainly]" [
> >
>
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/IcelOnline/IcelOnline.TEId-idx?\
> type=simple&size=First+100&rgn=lemma&q1=r%F3sa&submit=Search
> > ]. I guess Zoega's translation captures some of the
> > obliqueness/indirectness/ambiguity of the expression: "there was a
> > coolness between H. and his wife", but misses the sexual connotation.
> >
> > Llama Nom
> >
>
>
>