Grammar books often use difficult concepts that they all too
often do not even take the trouble to define or explain: the
reader is automatically supposed to be conversant with a large
number of difficult as well as abstract terms. Of course, if
you are already well versed in Latin or German grammar, then
most of these concepts will not cause any problem whatsoever.
But for someone like me, who has been a way from formal grammar
studies since I was a around 16 years old, these concepts are
not easy at all, and require a lot of thought before I am able
to use them to my advantage in connection with the study of Old
Norse. I therefore thought it might facilitate my own learning
process if I wrote down some of the things I find in various books,
and then communicated them to others who are in approximately
the same learning situation as myself. Feeedback, criticism and/or
supplementary information/examples might then prove to be
stimulating not only to myself - at least that is what I hope.
Persusing a grammar book like Odd Einar Haugen's "Grunnbok i
norrønt språk" (isbn 8241705069), I find that he uses terms like
"ablative". Of course I know this to be a term familiar from Latin
grammarbooks, but off-hand I am not able to explain it properly
to myself. I therefore thought I would look it up, and write something
about it, in the hope that it will be useful to others beside myself.
Thus I take a look at a general dictionary such as the one by Brockhaus:
(general dictionaries, e.g. Britannica or some similar encyclopedic
reference work, are usually quite good for getting a first definition
of a grammatical concept, since they, although brief, in general try
to explain things from scratch, i.e. they do not base their
explanations upon other, perhaps equally abstruse concepts)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<BROCKHAUS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ablative = case of separation in the indogermanic languages.
It answers the question "whence". An example is "de foro discere"
i.e. "to go away from the forum". In Latin the Ablative also takes
over the funcion of the Locative (i.e. the Ablativus loci answers
the question "where?" Example: ideoneo loco = "in a suitable place")
as well as Instrumentalis (i.e. the Ablativus instrumenti answers
the question "wherewith, by means of which?"). The Ablativus
absolutus is a syntactic construction equivalent to a sentence.
It usually consists of a subject in the Ablative case with a
participle in the same case. Example: Roma deliberante =
"[while] Rome [was/is] deliberating".>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, that is it!
So we have here run into several grammatical concepts:
ablative
locative
instrumentalis
These concepts are all used in Old Norse grammar books!
But I am affraid these concept are not (yet) sufficiently
clear from these short remarks only.
First some etymologies:
ablative = from Latin ablatus = "removed"
locative = from Latin locus = "place"
instrumentalis = from Latin instrumentum = "tool"
Then to the Latin grammar book (I use Wheelock, page 7, Chapter II):
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The ablative case we sometimes call the adverbial case, because
it was the case used by the Romans when they wished to modify,
or limit, the verb by such ideas as _means_ ("by what"),
_agent_ ("by whom"), accompaniment ("with whom"), _manner_ ("how"),
_place_ ("where; from which"), _time_ ("when or within which")
The Romans used the ablative sometimes with a preposition and
sometimes without one. There is no simple rule for translating
this complex case.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note here especially the words "sometimes with a preposition
and sometimes without one", for I think that is quite important
in Old Norse as well. Also note that the Latin ablative is a _case_
(casus) on equal footing with the others. That is, to quote
Whellock's first example, for the Latin word "porta" = gate, we have
the column of cases:
Nom. porta
Gen. portae
Dat. portae
Acc. portam
Abl. porta
Voc. porta
When working for a long time with German and Old Norse, one might easily
forget that Latin actually has 6 different cases, since one pretty soon
becomes so accustomed to thinking in terms of only the 4 cases Nominative,
Genitiv, Dativ and Accusativ, that one distractedly might forget the
Ablative and Vocative cases, that apply to all Latin nouns in addition
to the 4 familiar cases.
Then the question arises: Why do grammar books of Old Norse use such terms
as "ablative" when these grammatical categories are absent from Old Norse?
Well, I suppose the answer is that, although it is true that it is formally
absent from ON, the syntactic categories that it used to express, are
NOT absent from Old Norse, but very much present, since both Latin as
well as Old Norse and German, all descend from a common, now lost, root
called common Indo-European. And probably, something similar to an ablative
case was already at work in Indo-European. Hence it is useful to know
about this grammatical/syntactical category through the example of Latin,
a more than two thousand year old Indo-European language, where syntax
as well as morphology are extremely well documented, easily going back
beyond Old Norse by at least a millennium.
But back to Old Norse: Odd Einar Haugen writes (op.cit. page 260):
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
DATIV er typisk kasus for det indirekte objekt på norrønt.
Men dativ har fleire andre bruksmåtar, og i språkhistorisk
samanheng kan det påvisast at han har teke opp i seg fire
ulike kasus frå det indo-europeiske grunnspråket:
1. Rein dativ -- om den som har nytte eller skade av verbhandlinga.
Dette svarar til den semantiske rolla vi kallar BENEFAKTIV, til dels
også PERSEPTIV.
2. Instrumental dativ -- om reidskap og middel i vid forstand. Dette
tilsvarar den semantiske rolla vi kallar INSTRUMENTAL.
3. Ablativisk dativ -- om opphav og årsak. Dette tilsvarar den semantiske
rolla vi kallar ABLATIV.
4. Lokativisk dativ -- om stad og tid. Dette tilsvarar dei semantiske
rollane vi kallar LOKATIV og TEMPORAL.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IN English:
Dative is the typical case for the indirect object in Old Norse.
But dative has several other modes of use, and in the context of
language history it can be shown that it encompasses four different
cases in the Indo-European base language:
1. Pure dative -- concerned with he who has use or damage from the verbal
action. This corresponds to the semantic role we call benefactive, in
part also perceptive.
2. Instrumental dativ -- concerned with tools and means in a wide sense.
This corresponds to the semantic role we call instrumental.
3. Ablativic dative -- concerned with origin and cause. This corresponds
to the semantic role we call ablative.
4. Locative dative -- concerned with time and place. This corresponds
to the semantic roles we call locative and temporal.
I could now proceed to give several examples (Odd Einar Haugen has a
whole bunch of them). But I think that right now, I'd better leave
them for another post, since right now I am not sure how clearly
I have expressed myself, and how useful the above was to the lot of you.
Old cake? or too advanced? In any case, it is useful to familiarize oneself
with the mentioned concepts, for, at least in my experience grammar is like
that: It is not sufficient to study the concepts only once, for here as
elswhere (f.ex. in the study of computer languages) the rule seems to be:
"in through one ear, out through the other", and one definitely needs
frequent exposure as well as discussion and use, in order that the ideas
become fixed in ones mind. And it definitely is not easy to write
clearly and lucidly about such subjects, such that the ideas stick.
Only frequent repetition will do the job. "Tidlig må den krok krøkast
som god krok skal bli". On the other hand, "it is never too late" for
those who go to it sincerely and diligently ;)