Hi Voden,
> Odd as it sounds, the order of the words in Icelandic sentence is
> free.
>
> Nær ég kem.
> Ég kem nær.
> Kem ég nær. (Here question comes in mind)
Freer than in modern English (and freer in medieval Icelandic than
modern Icelandic, I've read), but not completely random, surely?
Would I be right in thinking that some word orders would sound more
odd in Icelandic than others? This issue is discussed in Norse Course
lesson 6, section 1.3 [
http://www.hi.is/%7Ehaukurth/norse/olessons/lesson6.php?colors=1 ].
One reason I took 'nær er' to be a complementiser meaning "when",
rather than the adverb "near", is that when adverbs are moved to the
beginning of the clause for emphasis, it's normal to place the finite
verb immediately after such an adverb, e.g. Nær er sá er hana skir
"Near is he who pursues her." Whereas there's nothing untoward about
the order Complementiser + Noun Phrase + Verb, e.g. er þeir koma.
> En nú haf þú njósn af nær er þeir koma til bæjarins og seg mér.
> But now have/you discret-lookout of near as they arrive to the town
and report(tell all about) me.
Simply replacing the Icelandic words with their English cognates
doesn't clarify the matter. "of near as" doesn't mean anything to me;
it just isn't an expression I'm familiar with in English. I'm not
sure whether this is a new suggestion different to your original one,
or if you are just explaining your first suggestion using other words.
> Near: "nálægt(in the vicinity of)" the time they arrive. But before
the arrival to grant time of preparation?
Are you saying that they he's being told that he should "at around
about the time when they will come to town (i.e. shortly before you
expect them), keep a discreet lookout for them"? Or could it be:
"Keep a discreet lookout for when they come to town." (with 'nær'
being part of the second clause and referring to the time of their
arrival rather than the time of the watch)?
> "Nær ég kem" can be emphasised "þegar ég kem nær".
Are you talking about your own language here, or that of the middle
ages, or does this apply equally to both? Are you saying that these
two clauses have the same meaning except that the second is more
emphatic? How would you translate them into English if you read them
in a saga from the middle ages? Something like "when I come" for the
first, and the second as "as soon as I arrive" (emphasising the exact
moment), or perhaps just "when I arrive"? I've read that nowadays
'þegar' is as likely to just mean "when", and has taken over in the
spoken language from 'er' "when". Is that right? Is there a
difference in meaning or usage nowadays between 'hvenær' and 'þegar'?
Would you ever use 'nær' on its own to mean "when" in Modern
Icelandic? Would it be grammatical now or in the past to say: Nær ég
kem nær "When I arrive"?
> "Næst er ég kom" refers to first I came, secondly I came,....
> It happens nearest to some preferred instant further back.
> It must be accident: the coincidence of next time (then) and last
> time.
>
> "Next when I came" I translate as "Næst er/þegar ég kem.
Thanks for explaining; this makes sense, although instead of
"preferred" I might have said something like: "It happens on the
time/occasion PREVIOUS TO some specific/specified/particular occasion"
or possibly "the occasion NEXT FURTHEST BACK FROM some specific
occasion". I think I saw the translation "next when I came" in CV,
which isn't something I would say myself, and I would be puzzled if I
heard anyone say it in English. We say "next time" (in the future),
"last/previous time" (in the past).
> How right you are "prepos." I meant affixes.
> As prepos. incates its location it self.
> "NærKoma" or apart as Koma nær.
This is a tricky problem, which syntacticians are still debating.
Traditionally such words were called adverbs, at least in English
grammar. More recently it has been suggested that they should be
regarded as "intransitive prepositions" [
http://www.staff.uni-marburg.de/~uffmann/syn-argueprep.htm ]. I've
also seen them called just "particles". The term "phrasal verbs" is
sometimes used to refer to such verbs in English. I don't know what
the best name is... But where it's felt to be part of the same word
as the verb, yes, you can call it an "affix", in this case
specifically a "prefix".
> Nuances:
>
> Þeir koma nær.> the arrival.
> Þeir nær koma. > the approach.
>
> You got the point?
So the first one refers to a point in time: they arrive / they get
here, and the second the more process over time: they approach / get
nearer? Is is normal nowadays to spell 'nær koma' as one word or two,
or doesn't it matter? Does this rule apply also to the language of
the middle ages?
> Ablatives they call this in Latin text.
I don't understand what you mean here. The ablative is one of six
cases in Latin, along with nominative, accusative, etc. Its basic
spacial meaning is "away from", although it has abstract uses too.
It's role in the Germanic languages has been taken over by other
cases, especially the dative.
> Like Ég HandSker fisk. In Latin could appear. Hand sker ég Fisk.
That looks more like Icelandic to me :) I'm not sure what your point
is here. Is 'hand sker ég fisk' correct Icelandic or are you saying
that this word order would only be natural in Latin? Is there a rule
about when 'handskera' is spelt as one word or two?
> Ponder: what is this Hand doing there?
Slicing fish?
> Look for a verb....
>
> Most often the abltive is affixed to the verb in question here in
> Iceland. Thanks my forefathers.
Again, I'm not familiar with this use of the word "ablative". Maybe
what traditional grammarians called the "adverb" or some people call a
verbal "particle"? It occured to me that maybe your first mention of
Latin was a referrence to the rhetorical device called "hyperbaton".
This means splitting up the constituents of a clause, e.g. dignos
educere versus "to recite worthy verses" (literally "worthy to-recite
verses"), something that also happens in Old Norse, especially in
poetry: af heilum hvat varð húnum mínum "what has become of my healthy
boys". Is that what you meant? I may have misunderstood...
> But of Dogs, the canines ? Yes Wolf opposes sheep as Wolf is free
like King/Man but Sheep as slave.
Did you know that lambs stop dreaming when they grow up? Or at least
they stop having REM stage sleep, which is how they manage to sleep
standing up. And speaking of sleep...
Llama Nom