--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:
>
> Vertu heill Konráð!
>
> > an interesting sidenote here about the verb 'langa':
> >
> > 'The verb langa has a personal construction: til slícs fagnaþar
scylde hveR maþr langa 27r20 (Hómilíubók), 31v13, etc.' (Van Weenen,
Icelandic Homily Book).

> Could this be anything to do with the fact that there is another
verb dependent on 'skyldi' in this sentence: '...skyldi hverr maðr
langa ok of þat önn ala...'?

Perhaps Van Weenen is seeing a personal/impersonal distinction for
the verb which doesn't involve it taking other than an accusative
subject? You're certainly right about 'skyldi' here - maðr ends up
nominitive here regardless of 'langa'. The author doesn't elaborate
any further, so it's up to the reader to interpret it. 'of' for 'um'
(as in the sentence you quote above) seems to have been universal in
ON, where later we have 'um' instead; 'umb' was confined to the
sense 'around/about' (<*umbi). It would seem that the change was in
place by the 13th century, though. I point it out because it's a
detail that often seems to go more or less unnoticed.

> But searching on Google, I find Modern Icelandic examples such
as 'mig langar og ætla', so maybe that's not a factor. Or could the
example in Hómilíubók have been influenced by some Latin
usage?

I'm not sure. There seems to be a school of thought that the homily
books to some degree represent foreign syntax, but I'd be hard
pressed to cite examples myself ;) The foreign influence I see most
clearly is in the vocabulary (loanwords and new, stretched usages of
ON words, new formations/compounds, etc.). To name a few examples off
the top of my mind - miskunn, náð, kærleikr, öfund, synd etc. etc.
(words that aquire new connotations with Christianity; himinríki
(later himnaríki), helvíti, guðspiall (and guðspallaskald), etc. etc.
(new compounds), and guð (new word, previously only goð, which is
always neuter), and translations and/or adaptations of foreign
concepts/characters: djöfull, engill, andskoti (previously only in
the meaning 'opponent' - the one who shoots against), etc. etc.. The
list is very long indeed, but I think it's highly doubtful that this
had much, if anything, to say about syntax or phonology. I'll grant
that it's a tricky, complex topic, and that opinions differ. Still,
the older stage of the language represented gives us invaluable
insight into the finer details of ON during the earliest Catholic
period - the small differences in phonology, declension, etc. from
the 13th century standard we use today. Together with the runic
inscriptions, evidence from scaldic poetry, etc., it gives us the
tools we need to get the language of the last heathen period right,
at least on paper. That's invaluable for folk who are primarily
interested in the native Norse culture, because it gives us a more
accurate picture of their language.

> I don't know much about the history of it, so I don't know if
that's likely, but the religious subject matter makes me wonder.

;) I've read these books many times and I'm still wondering.

> The Old English verb 'langian' has a nominative subject when it
means "to lengthen", but has accusative when it means "to want, to
long for" just as in Icelandic.

'to lengthen' is 'lengja' in ON/Icelandic and takes a nominitive
subject, so no problems here. As OE and ON agree on accusative
for 'to long', my guess is that it's inherited.

> Þórhallur Eyþórsson has some more examples of nominative in place of
the usual accusative in Old Icelandic in: 'Dative vs. Nomination:
Changes in quirky subjects in Icelandic'.

> "...the investigation showed that the substitution of nominative for
oblique cases is attested already in Old Icelandic, affecting various
kinds of quirky subjects (or subject-like NPs), including Experiencers
(at least with dreyma `dream', gruna `suspect', langa `want', ugga
`fear' and undra `wonder'). Some examples of N[ominativbe] S[ickness]
from Old Icelandic texts are given in (7):"

> (7) a.
>
> Ein kona... dreymdi þann dróm.
> one woman-nom dreamt-3.sg that dream
> `One woman... dreamt that dream.' (Mar.: 1029)
>
> b.
>
> þóttist hann ok spurt hafa, at Orkneyíngar myndi
> seemed he also learned have that Orkneymen-nom would-3.pl
>
> lítt lánga til, at hann kæmi vestr þagat.
> little want to that he came westward thither
>
> `It also seemed to him that the men of the Orkneys would not be
> eager for him to come here to the west.' (Fms. VII:28)
>
> c.
>
> þetta undra víkingar.
> this wonder-3.pl vikings-nom
> `The vikings wondered at this.' (Fas. II:530)
> _____________________________________________

Interesting, indeed.

> But apparently, there is only one example of a dative being used in
Old Icelandic with such a verb that would normally have an accusative
"logical subject" ('honum skortir' in Grágás) -- although I gather
this has become a common (non-standard / frowned-upon) variant in
Modern Icelandic. Regarding which, I found an curious comment here
about half-correct usages, with a mixture of accusative and dative,
such as * 'mig langar og honum líka' "I want and so does he" (!) [
http://www.ma.is/kenn/svp/pistlar/mars03.htm ] (líka = "also", not the
verb 'líka') -- due to people having being taught that 'mig langar' is
the correct form, but forgetting the rule.

;) Well, there are clearly a lot of mistakes being made, bad usage,
etc.. It seems typical enough of any language. Studying Hindi and
Bengali (which have a lot of speakers, dialects, variation, etc.) has
made me much more relaxed about sentences like **mig langar og honum
líka. Written and spoken language differ. As long as the speaker of
the above sentence can write correctly without guidance, I wouldn't
worry too much about mistakes in casual conversation. It's natural to
make mistakes, after all. As Þórhallur's examples show, it's even pre-
modern to make mistakes ;) There's a good argument to be made that a
standard, written language is perhaps the most important stabilizing
factor. When speakers of two dialects meet, they move towards the
standard. When we learn a new language, we learn the standard. When
everyone must refer to the standard, it tends to keep things like
'mig langar' in place without severely punishing the violators ;) So,
letting the conservatives guard and teach the standard is probably
not a bad idea. Viva Oxford Dictionary of the English Language and
company ;)

Konrad


> LN
>
>
> --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "akoddsson" <konrad_oddsson@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Heill Llama!
> >
> > --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
> > >
> > > We had a discussion here recently about the complications of
> > saying "I like" in Icelandic [
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/norse_course/message/7913 ].
> >
> > I missed this. An interesting sidenote here about the
verb 'langa':
> >
> > 'The verb langa has a personal construction: til slícs fagnaþar
> > scylde hveR maþr langa 27r20 (Hómilíubók), 31v13, etc.' (Van
Weenen,
> > Icelandic Homily Book). I'm not sure if there are any parallel
> > obsolete usages of 'líka', but **mér líkar hangikjöt won't work
in
> > Modern Icelandic. I can't explain why this is so - for some
reason it
> > breaks with inherited usage-tradition. Interestingly, the verb
> > mirrors Modern English usage in the mainland Scandinavian
languages
> > (for example, eg likar hangekjot, Modern Norwegian). It could
just be
> > English influence, but I'm not sure. In my opinion, the
contructions
> > 'mér líkar vel/illa við hangikjöt/eitthvað/einhvern'
> > (something/someone) are very good, classic modern usage, whatever
the
> > history. But if I ever run across archaic or obsolete usages
> > of 'líka', I'll rememeber to post them here for discussion ;)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Konrad
> >
> > > I wonder if this sentence could be amended to:
> > >
> > > Mér þykkir gaman at ganga á nóttum.
> > >
> > > Compare Ögmundar þáttr dytts: mér þykkir gaman at hafa hálflit
klæði
> > > "I like to wear / enjoy wearing clothes of two colours."
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Stridmann" <stridmann@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > 'elska at...' Is it possible that this is a modernism?
> > > > > > This is very recent usage, totally anachronistic.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've found such exaples:
> > > > >
> > > > > "...elskaði hún hann mjög..." (EYRBYGGJA SAGA)
> > > > > "...Signý elskaði hann..." (HRANA SAGA HRINGS)
> > > > > "Haraldur konungur elskaði mjög Íslendinga." (SNEGLU-HALLA
> > ÞÁTTUR)
> > > >
> > > > Hi Tim,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I didn't really explain clearly enough what I meant.
The
> > difference is that in each of these examples, the
complement/object of
> > the verb is a noun. This is perfectly normal in Old Icelandic;
most,
> > though not all, of the examples I saw had an animate noun as the
> > complement, as in these three examples. The anachronism is the
use of
> > 'elska' with a clausal complement such as 'at ganga náttliga' to
> > describe an action which the subject of the
verb 'elska' "likes/loves
> > to do".
> > > >
> > > > LN
> > > >
> > >
> >
>