Thanks for extra detail, Haukur! I hope I got the rest of
pronunciation stuff more or less right...

So, it's gone from 'hald' to 'halt' by the final devoicing rule (as in
'band' > 'batt', etc.), then back to 'hald' (in theory [
http://www.lexis.hi.is/beygingarlysing/so/sb/halda.html ]) by analogy
with forms where 'd' remained, then back to 'halt þú' by analogy with
'haltu'?

> In practice I think most people would in fact say "Nei,
> ég vil ekki halda vörð - halt þú vörð."

You have to watch out you don't accidentally start off any major world
religions with that sort of attitude :-)

> "Nei, ég vil ekki fara' út í búð. Farð þú."

Interesting... We met with a similar phenomenon in the last section
of Njáls saga we looked at: the modern 2nd person indicative 'þú
sérð', as opposed to the older 'þú sér'.

LN


--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, Haukur Þorgeirsson <haukurth@...>
wrote:

>
> > Also, the (simple / unsuffixed) regular imperative singular of 'halda'
> > was 'halt' in Old Norse, although Modern Icelandic has replaced this
> > with 'hald' by analogy with other parts of the conjugation.
>
> In theory maybe. In practice I think most people would in fact say "Nei,
> ég vil ekki halda vörð - halt þú vörð." I use an example like this

because

> the unsuffixed singular imperative is almost exclusively used when a
> strong emphasis is on the pronoun. The pronoun understandably

doesn't like

> to become a suffix when it's emphasized. Nevertheless the imperative

form

> is most familiar in the suffixed form so will tend to retain whatever
> changes the suffix has wrought on it even when the pronoun reasserts
> itself.
>
> Similarly one would say:
>
> "Nei, ég vil ekki fara' út í búð. Farð þú."
>
> "Nei, ég nenni' ekki' að koma til þín í kvöld. Komd (kond) þú til mín."
>
> (Well, *I* might say "far þú" and "kom þú" but I think that is probably
> hyper-correct or bookish.)
>
> Kveðja,
> Haukur