Hi Annika,

> _the '(h)inn' would of course only be used if the brother had
recently been mentioned in the same conversation or was in sight at
the time of the conversation...

Does this rule about (h)inn apply to Modern Icelandic? And if the
brother was not in sight and had not been recently mentioned, would
the adjective still be weak? Here are some examples from Old
Icelandic where I think the thing/person is being mentioned for the
first time in the conversation:

1) Gillingr skal hafa uxa minn inn góða
"G. shall have my best ox"
(Gautreks saga, ch. 2)

2) Upp rístu Þakkráðr,
þræll minn in bezti.
"Arise Th., my best thrall"
(Völundarkviða, st. 39)

3) ok minn inn hvassi hjörr
"and my sharp sword"
(Fáfnismál, st. 6)

4) Skaltu nú drekka brullaup til hennar ok fara í skrúða minn inn
besta.
You must/shall now marry her and go in my best raiment.
(Sturlaugs saga starfsama, ch. 22)

5) bróðir þinn inn böðskái
"your warlike brother"

Admittedly in 3, though not mentioned, the sword has been felt. In
1 and 4 I'm not sure if the item in in sight, but maybe. Gilling is
a poor man so perhaps he keeps his ox indoors. I don't know the
context of 4, I'm afraid. In 5, the brother is probably NOT IN
SIGHT, as he's just arrived and instructed the speaker to go inside
the hall to announce his arrival.

Not strictly relevant, but the use of possessive + demonstrative is
also found in Old English:

6) broþer þin se selesta
"your blessed brother"
(Guþlac 1332-3)

...and weak adjectives with or without definite/demonstrative
pronouns in Gothic:

7) þu is sunus meins sa liuba
you are my own beloved son
(Luke 3,22)--speaker = voice from heaven, who hasn't mentioned
anything till now

8) sa sunus meins dauþs was jah gaqiunoda
my son was dead but came to life
(Luke 15,24)--speaker = father of the Prodigal Son, speaking in
private to his jealous other son

9) Þu nu, barn mein waliso
so you, my dear child
(2Tim 2,1)

In vocatives like 9, the weak/definite declension of the adjective
is a matter of convention, used even in writing a letter, as in 9,
or a Gospel, where the adressee is not in sight: batista
Þaiaufeilu "most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1,1). This is the very
beginning of the Gospel, so Th. hasn't been mentioned previously
either. On the other hand, an early 5th c. inscription from Norway
has the vocative adjective declined strong, and without
demonstrative/article:

10) Birg, Inguboro, swestar minu liubu meR Wage
"Save/protect [me], Inguboro, my dear sister, me WagaR."
(Opedal runestone)

It has been speculated that this was a prayer addressed to the
occupant of a nearby grave-mound (20m away, according to Arild
Hauge's site). I don't know if that affects the grammar though.
The Opedal inscription conflicts with Gothic usage. Would this
require a definite pronoun in Old Norse? Modern Icelandic?



> Also I think it's likely that instead of using the word little
they would maybe only use a diminuative, so you could get something
like bróð + le (the diminuative) + ur/ir, which with vocal
subtraction would give an end result somthing like bróðlir, which
would mean little or small brother...


Do you have any examples of this method of forming a diminutive?
Did it survive in Old Icelandic as a productive affix? The old
diminutives -ill and -li were added to the end of the word and
affect the declination, but I hadn't heard of this diminutive infix
in ON. I'm not sure that even -ill and -li were freely combined
with roots in historical times.

Where did the speaker come from in Eaters of the Dead? I haven't
read the book, but in the film (13th Warrior) I think they end up in
Norway don't they? But could it be an East Norse peculiarity?
Maybe we should be looking for parallels on Swedish runestones.
Lots of examples of bróþir, anyway, but are there any with an
adjective?

Llama Nom









--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, Annika Larla Evensen McKibbin
<runadis@...> wrote:
> _the '(h)inn' would of course only be used if the brother had
recently been mentioned in the same conversation or was in sight at
the time of the conversation... Also I think it's likely that
instead of using the word little they would maybe only use a
diminuative, so you could get something like bróð + le (the
diminuative) + ur/ir, which with vocal subtraction would give an
end result somthing like bróðlir, wich would mean little or small
brother...
>
> Runadis
>
> llama_nom <600cell@...> wrote:
>
> --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "absnt_mnd_prof"
> <hilandfox@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Can anyone give me the old norse for this?
>
>
> Google turns up a lot of Modern Icelandic examples of both:
>
> litli bróðir minn (1990)
> bróðir minn litli (52)
>
> Also a few with: hinn litli bróðir minn. I don't know if that
adds
> the same kind of emphasis as English "that little brother of mine".
>
> Perhaps the most likely way to say it in Old Norse would be:
>
> bróðir minn inn litli
>
> Llama Nom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.
>
> Homepage: http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/
>
> To escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail to:
>
> norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> document.write('');
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/norse_course/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!