From: Haukur Thorgeirsson
Message: 3849
Date: 2003-11-22
> There are some misprints or mistakes in the book, and one whole classThese are merely alternative forms. In the mss we have both /e/ and /i/
> of them involves Old Icelandic. Can anybody tell me what these forms
> represent? Oldest attestations, or maybe a mnemonic scheme for learning
> the paradigms?
> I have Gordon's book, which I take as my authority.Perfectly normal. The i-mutation in /degi/ is actually somewhat more
>
> 1. Lass has /e/ for /i/ wherever this appears in the dative singular
> masc and neut. Even /deg-e/, where he explains the stem change is due
> to i-umlaut. For i-stem gestr Lass gives nom. pl. gest-er and acc. pl.
> gest-e.
> 2. The u-stem example is even stranger:He seems to be going for the most archaic forms. You notice he only
> sg.
> N sun-r for son-r
> G son-ar
> D syn-e for syn-i
> A sun for son
> pl.
> N syn-er for syn-ir
> G son-a
> D sun-um
> A sun-o for sun-u
> BUT a dative -i for foet-i (with oe=ligature)That is rather peculiar, I admit. Usually people are consistent in
> 3. Here is the present conjugation of beraThis is subjunctive past tense and perfectly correct.
> sg
> 1 bær-a
> 2 bær-er
> 3 bær-e
> pl
> 1 bær-em
> 2 bær-eÞ
> 3 bær-e
> I understand from Gordon that ö (hook o) to á and then i-ulaut to æ.If he really has the accent on the o's I don't know why. I could understand
> So why /e/ for /i/ in all the endings?
>
> 4. Last thing: for '9' and '10' Lass gives OIc nió and tió, instead of
> the expected níu and tíu; '11' is ellefo for ellifu.