Re: Katli svarat

Heill Ketill :)

> > >No no, not at all :) The dualis is just "vit". Then there is a
> > >preposition "við". However, later ON has some lenition going on,
> > >so "vit" > "við"; the latter is the MI and MFarose form, as well

as

> > >the probable ancestor of Scandinavian "vi".

I'm about to prove myself wrong...

> myndum vit --> myndu mvit --> myndu mit.
>
> So the "m" ending of the 1st person plural got glued
> onto the "vit", and hence "vit" became changed into "mit".
> And so we actually have 4 forms:
>
> vit, við, mit, mið

Your theory is very insightful, and in most probability true.
However, a book that I read through today, by Einar Haugen, confirms
that "me" comes from a Norwegian variant of "vér", "mér". The origin
of "mér" would then almost certainly be as you described,
i.e. "skulum vér" --> "skulu mér" (Old Norwegian also happened to
lose the m in the -um ending).

A corresponding story is our standard form "þér". This is a West
Norse form; East Norse had "ér", "ír" or "í" (the latest is the
ancestor of Danish "I"); cf. Völuspá "Vituð ér enn eða hvat?". "Þér"
would have developed by stealing the ð of the 2p pl ending,
i.e. "vituð ér" -> "vitu ðér" ("vituð þér").

> > Vit vilja tevatn og breyð!

>[snip ponderings of this phrase]

You misunderstood, Ketill... That's MFaroese! :þ

Equivalent ON would be "Vér/vit viljum tevatn ok brauð!"

Óskar