Re: Danish enigma

Thank you, Aquila. I believe you would rephrase 'lykkes' in perfect
to something like "Jeg har vaeret heldig at ..."

---------------------------------------------------

yes, it can be rephrased like this. However, the verb can alsob e
constructed to mean: "Det gikk heldig for meg"

Examples of the two constructions, using the officially correct ppt:

Vi har lykkes med huskjøpet - We have succeded in buying the house.

Huskjøpet har lykkes for oss - The buying of the house was a success
for us.

Norwegian would often prefere the plain imperfect tense in these
sentences, instead of perfect.

> >
> > Same thing in Danish. Swedish (because they have an Academy?) is
> much
> > more well-ordered than Danish (and there Norwegian bokmål). The
> > Swedish supine (the form used in compound tense,
> > -it in strong verbs, identical to the n.sg form of the past
> > participle in weak verbs), I read somewhere, is a originally a
> > dialectal variant of the n.sg. form of the past participle in -

et.

> > Actually the whole set-up of the passive in Swedish looks like

it

> was
> > the result of languagage planning and Academy intervention, but

I

> > have no actual evidence of that. Of the passive forms in spoken
> > Danish only the infinitive is used, with modal verbs: 'kan
> > læses' "can be read"; the present is used for

the 'institutionally

> > habitual'(?) 'porten lukkes kl. 8' "the gate is closed at 8
> o'clock
> > (every day)" contrasting with 'porten bliver lukket kl. 8' "the
> gate
> > is (will be) closed at 8 (today)". That means that the past
> passive
> > should be used for the 'past habitual', and how often does one
> need
> > that ('porten lukkedes kl. 8' "the gate was closed (every day)

at

> > 8")?
> >
> > With deponent verbs like 'lykkes' "succeed" (constructed as if
> with a
> > dative 'det lykkedes mig at ...' "I succeeded in ...") the

problem

> is
> > that we have no passive supine or ppp, therefore we try to use

the

> > passive past, which we are also becoming unsure in the use of,
> since
> > it's used so little, therefore 'det er lykkedes mig' "I have
> > succeeded in...". I hear people say 'det kan lykkedes',

apparently

> > since they can't do the analysis into -ede + -s (it took me long
> time
> > when I was a kid to figure out that 'syntes' was the past
> > of 'synes' "think, be of the opinion".
> >
> > Another trouble deponent verb: 'findes' "exist"
> > Swedish: finnas, finns, fanns, har funnits
> > Danish: findes, findes, fandtes, har erh, hm, what?!
> > The periphrastic tenses are simply avoided in Danish.
> >
> > I must confess to being jealous of the Swedes for having such a
> > logical grammar, at least on this point.
>
> > Torsten
>
> Thanks, Torsten
> Interesting that I as a language user might be the product of
> volapük bricolage by the members of the Swedish Academy back in

the

> 1700's.
> If so, this bricolage has been a success, since -s passive voice

in

> all verb forms of active verbs and deponentia is something

natural

> to Swedish speakers.
> Generally the passive voice is felt more formal than expressions
> using the active, though. English is most tolerant to passive
> constructions of all languages, I think.
>
> Am I right to think that you analyse 'lykkedes' in the
> expression "det er ikke 'lykkedes' Lykketoft at ..." as some sort

of

> quotation of a shortened phrase containing the preterite of the

verb?

> Something like: "It is not '(sth) managed' for Lykketoft to ..."
>
> If so, this might open new ways of Sprachgefuehl when

reconstructing

> language evolutions. Take for instance: secutus sum, locuta sum.
> They were perhaps once felt like: "I am a (male) having followed",
> "I am a (female) having spoken".
>
> Deponens is not a verb having 'laid off' its passive meaning but

is

> really a middle form preceding passives of active verbs in
> evolution.
> So Latin periphrastic perfect of deponentia is perhaps not a mere
> calque of passives of active verbs.
>
> This is perhaps something to consider? If so ...
> Til 'lykke'
> Lars