As we're moving on to the next lesson, there are some things I must
address; first, the many errors in the lesson itself and the
additional exercises, and second, I'll talk a bit about common
mistakes in the solutions sent to us.
Lesson 2 has taught me and Haukur that we're severely prone to
writing out Modern Icelandic forms, instead of different ON forms,
without noticing, even after proof-reading. I hope you understand,
especially if you consider a hypothetical example: you were to write
texts in an older form of the language with very minor spelling
differences, such as "goode" instead of "good", "publick" instead
of "public", but with everything mostly the same; consider how easily
you'd slip modern forms in, without noticing even after a second
reading.
I must apologize, in any case, on our behalf, for the various
confusing and unfortunate mistakes we've presented in our lessons. I
want to try to recount and dispel some, or hopefully all, of them:
LESSON 2
Haukur has corrected most of them and posted to you as he did so.
LESSON 2 EXERCISES
The big problem with this package was that I accidentally included a
lot of vocabulary from the coming lesson (I got confused). Here is a
list:
* spyrja, spyr = ask (the one you ask is in accusative, to some
students' surprise)
* svara, svara = answer
* kenna, kenni = recognize, know (a place or a person)
* vilja = to want (an irregular verb, coming up in lesson 3; but see
also the cartoon "The Spearman")
* því at = because
Two other mistakes:
* "viljið" should be "vilið"; the form "viljið" is MI.
* I wrote "þit sjá_ (see)" in the "insert missing endings"
assignment, which was confusing (because the form that we use
is "séð"); I was thinking of "sjáið", the modern form.
I hope that, in the future, we will manage to contain these mental
slips of ours. Never thought teaching ON could be hard for us because
it's *too similar* to our modern language... :)
On to the students' mistakes:
Various mistakes with endings were of course common, but that's
really just a matter of practice. Lesson 2 introduced a horde of new
endings and forms, with the active present tense verb conjugation
coming all in one piece. A big bite to swallow, we know.
However, the most common mistake was one of syntax. We did not
clearly explain the existing rules of word order in lesson 2. We now
see that we must do so.
In all Germanic languages, including ON and MI, but excluding
English, there is a rule which says that "the main verb in the
sentence must be either the first or the second word". They are
therefore called "Verb-Second languages", or "V2 languages", in
linguistic jargon (which may be ignored, if you like). Let me
explain...
First, we must realize what "sentence" really means, strictly
speaking. We often think of sentences as sequences of words separated
by punctuation, or "blurts of speech separated by pauses for breath"
(?). In grammatic/linguistic terms, this is not accurate enough.
Without going into details, let me say that they are not only
separated by "pauses" (indicated by .:;?!() etc in our orthography),
but also by the group of words we call 'conjunctions' (e.g. "and,
but, then, as" etc). Consider this:
"He went and took the book."
Not one sentence, but two: "He went" (and) "[he] took the book".
Consider that we even have an orthographic sign for the
conjunction "and": &. It's not common practice, but "He went & took
the book." wouldn't be illogical at all. Some more examples of two
sentences commonly perceived as one:
"He sees that it's wrong." (separated by "that")
"They looked but saw nothing." (separated by "but")
"The dog came as the cat left." (separated by "as")
Or even more sentences together:
"They twitched, rose, and all up spoke."
That's three sentences.
Finding this confusing yet? Well, there's actually one very easy way
to count sentences, and now is when it really get's relevant to our
course: "The verbs are the key." That is to say, sentences are really
just a bunch of nouns/pronouns/whatever, all revolving around one big
VERB, the sun in the whole sentence system. A sentence must have a
verb, though it need not have anything else. Or rather, it needs to
have something else, but that something may as well be *implied* from
the context of surrounding sentences. Consider:
"He fumbled, then fell, and gave up a yell."
The first sentences introduces the subject, "he". The next sentence
is "fell," ("then" isn't within a sentence, it's just connecting
them); what's the subject there? Well, "he" again, only implied from
the preceding sentence. Obvious? Indeed :)
But some sentences have more than one "verb"! Consider:
"I want to go."
"I'm going."
Some genius might now say, "hey, that's two sentences, man."
Something like "I want" to "[I] go" and "I am" + "(?) going"(???) .
Doesn't make sense. The thing is, participles ("going") and
infinitives "[to] go" *don't count*.
There's nothing arbitrary about it; it's quite logical, you see.
Because participles and infinitives are like a transition stage
between verbs and nouns/adjectives. Infinitive, for example,
describes the action itself in a "universal", "infinite" sense (hence
the term); it doesn't decline or anything, but as far as syntax is
concerned, it might as well be a noun.
This means that
"I saw a flying, shrieking, wood-pecking bird!"
is one sentence (with "saw" as the main verb). As would
"To live or die, fighting in spite, is of no matter to the wise old
man."
be just one sentence (though at this point I'd think some experts
might disagree; I'm not much into the various schools of syntax, but
according to the system described above, which is a useful point of
view, this would be just one sentence). "Is" is the main verb there.
So where does that leave us? Well, it means that, re-introducing a
phrase from above, "the main verb in the sentence must be either the
first or the second word", the term "main verb" would mean all verbs
that are conjugated (for practical purposes). So when counting
sentences, look for verbs that conjugate; and when finding the main
verb in a Germanic sentence, look for the verb that conjugates.
This brings me (finally) back to ON; lesson 2 included a sentence
something like this:
"Now Eiríkr sees Óláfr."
Most, if not all, students who sent us solutions translated that as
* "Nú Eiríkr sér Óláf."
But that sounds very wrong to speakers of V2 languages. Allow me a
little digression to German (for the German students here, otherwise
you may skip this):
"Jetzt sieht der Erik den Olaf."
("Now sees Eric Olaf")
German is V2. German-speakers made the mistake too, but I think it
was because they were translating from English, instead of German.
So, the main verb here is the one which conjugates, "sees" (the only
verb anyway); it *must* be the first or the second word. It has
priority. Therefore, poor Eric must step away and let the verb come
first:
"Nú sér Eiríkr Óláf."
By now, you may be wondering if there're any further rules on whether
the verb should be the first or the second word. Alas, that's a
matter of taste, or at least in ON it is (in MI, putting the verb
first sets up a question). The verb is normally the second word; you
may safely put it always in that position. But sometimes it's the
first one, as in the recurring line in Völuspá: