Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand.

Diskutera konstgjorda/kunstige språk, kulturer, världar/verdener, nærstående vitenskaper og mykket/meget annat!
User avatar
Aszev
admin
admin
Posts: 1476
Joined: Tue 11 May 2010, 04:46
Location: Upp.
Contact:

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by Aszev » Mon 12 Aug 2013, 16:22

basilius wrote:
Aszev wrote:
Skógvur wrote:
DrGeoffStandish wrote:
basilius wrote:(3) Igår gav pojken inte mannen ett äpple.
Either "Igår gav inte pojken mannen ett äpple." or - even better - "Pojken gav inte mannen ett äpple igår." works.
I would say "i går gav pojken inte", with the negative after the subject.
Same. Otherwise it is definitely more marked. Although the context of the phrase makes it so that you might want that anyway.
More marked than what?

And what type of context may be needed to justify an alternative?
Igår gav pojken inte mannen ett äpple. is what I'd call the neutral phrase, with the normal WO of the clausal adverb following the subject. (Topic - Finite Verb - Subject - C. Adv.)

Igår gav inte pojken mannen ett äpple. has the finite verb emphasized.
Sound change works in mysterious ways.

Image CE
User avatar
Aszev
admin
admin
Posts: 1476
Joined: Tue 11 May 2010, 04:46
Location: Upp.
Contact:

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by Aszev » Mon 12 Aug 2013, 16:38

basilius wrote:...For the record, and for those Danish speakers who may visit this thread: the Danish versions of my "simpler" examples.

(A)

Drengen slog ikke manden.
Manden slog drengen ikke.
- These are supposed to describe the same situation, 'The boy didn't beat/hit the man' (with different intonation and placement of phrasal stress in English), neither of the two allowing for the alternative reading, 'The man didn't beat/hit the boy'. Is this correct?
Kinda, I'd say that your second phrase could also be read as the opposite, even if it could sound weird to some. Essentially, unstressed and familiar information can be moved leftwards in a sentence, which for example always is the case with unstressed pronouns. (Mannen slog honom inte is neutral; Mannen slog inte honom would have 'slog' or 'honom' emphasized.)
basilius wrote:(B) I går gav drengen manden et æble.

Upon reading some more on the topic, I realize that full NP's (rather than pronouns) as prepositionless "dative" complements must be problematic in colloquial Danish. Therefore, the question is whether (B) is grammatical in conservative written language, at least.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to construe an equivalent with a "dative" pronoun. Maybe, like the following:

(B') I går gav ham drengen et æble.

- and with negation:

(B'') I går gav ham drengen ikke et æble.

- but that's essentially a wild guess.
In Swedish it would be grammatical as you write it: I går gav pojken mannen ett äpple.

With the pronoun: I går gav pojken honom ett äpple.
Negated: I går gav pojken honom inte ett äpple.

You can move the dative pronoun to the left if it's unstressed and the subject is a noun, much like in my reply above. However, in some contexts this might sound a bit unusual to some.
Sound change works in mysterious ways.

Image CE
User avatar
sestir
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun 22 Mar 2015, 16:05
Location: Markaryd
Contact:

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by sestir » Wed 02 Sep 2015, 14:39

Question: The suffix -lig (En: -ly) is commonly believed to be an abbreviation for lik (like). However many adverbs in Swedish have the suffix -ligen with two extra letters. What is that?

Example words: verkligen (really), storligen(verily), vanligen (commonly)

I glanced at Sumerian case-inflexions today and noticed that the equative suffix is similar and carries the same sense. Could this be a Sumerian equative? :mrgreen:
However, there is also an -en suffix for adjectives (ON -inn). Scandinavian: kräsen, galen, kelen. English: heathen.
Ephraim
sinic
sinic
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:10
Location: Sweden

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by Ephraim » Wed 02 Sep 2015, 16:25

sestir wrote:Question: The suffix -lig (En: -ly) is commonly believed to be an abbreviation for lik (like). However many adverbs in Swedish have the suffix -ligen with two extra letters. What is that?

Example words: verkligen (really), storligen(verily), vanligen (commonly)
In Modern Swedish, adjectives in –lig (vanlig) often form adverbs in –ligen (vanligen). This is different from the normal pattern, where adjectives form adverbs (usually adverbs of manner) simply by using the neuter singular indefinite (snabb > snabbt). This include adjectives with the similar but unrelated suffix –ig, which form can form adjectives in –igt but typically not in –igen (though there are a few archaic examples: behörigen, saligen).

Adjectives in –lig often also form adverbs in –ligt. I don't actually think the –ligen pattern is that productive in present day Swedish, but the –ligt pattern is. There may be a difference in meaning between the two. Adverbs in –ligt are usually adverbs of manner with a relatively transparent semantic relationship to the adjective. "Jag skriver vanligt" ‘I write in an ordinary manner’, besides "Jag skriver vanligen" ‘I usually write’ (< vanlig ‘common, ordinary, usual’). "Jag skriver tydligt" ‘I write clearly’ besides "Jag skriver tydligen" ‘Apparently, I write’ (< tydlig ‘clear, unambiguous, obvious’).

The suffix –lig is almost certainly related to sv. lik, eng. like, and was originally just a part of a compound word. Old Swedish had adjectives in –liker (declined like regular adjectives), later weakened to –ligher, corresponding to Old Icelandic adjectives in –ligr (with the /k/ already weakened to [ɣ]) and Old English adjectives in -līċ. Old Swedish also had adverbs in –lika (later –ligha), corresponding to Old Icelandic adverbs in –liga and Old English adverbs in -līċe.

The suffix –ligen (older –lighen) is found sporadically in writing from the 15th century and is borrowed from Low German –liken. In Low German, the ending –en is used more generally to form adverbs from adjectives but Swedish mostly borrowed it only as part of the ending –ligen. I'm not sure about the further origin of this ending –en, though.

Adverbs in –lika > –ligha are still common in the Gustav Vasa Bible (published in 1540-41), with forms such as storligha, gladhliga, rätteligha etc., cf. eng. gladly, rightly. But later, these forms weakened to –ligh or just –li. These endings were then replaced by the borrowed ending –liken. I don't think Modern Standard Swedish has any adverbs in –liga or –lig.
sestir wrote:However, there is also an -en suffix for adjectives (ON -inn). Scandinavian: kräsen, galen, kelen. English: heathen.
I'm not sure if this ending is related to the –en in Low German –liken, it could be.
User avatar
sestir
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun 22 Mar 2015, 16:05
Location: Markaryd
Contact:

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by sestir » Wed 02 Sep 2015, 18:43

SAOB: fsv. daghlika, mnt. dageliken, dagelik, fht. tagalichin
fht = OHG
I feel almost sure that this features doesn't exist in Gothic. So something that exist in modern Scandinavian and in OHG but not in Gothic, that's cool!
Ephraim
sinic
sinic
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:10
Location: Sweden

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by Ephraim » Wed 02 Sep 2015, 21:58

sestir wrote:
SAOB: fsv. daghlika, mnt. dageliken, dagelik, fht. tagalichin
fht = OHG
I feel almost sure that this features doesn't exist in Gothic. So something that exist in modern Scandinavian and in OHG but not in Gothic, that's cool!
What feature are you referring to? The suffix –ligen exist in Swedish only because it was borrowed from Middle Low German (does Danish and Norwegian have it? I'm not sure). But I would be interested to know the origin of the adverb ending –en (OHG -in apparently).

The Old Swedish adverb suffix –lika seems to have cognates all over the Germanic family. Gothic has an adverb suffix –leikō and OE has –līċe. There are apparently a cognate Middle Low German suffix –liche and an Old High German suffix –līchō as well. These forms goes back to PG *–līkô, from the adjective-forming suffix *–līkaz (OSw –liker, Gothic –leiks) and a suffix deriving adverbs of manner *–ô.

(I tried to post the Gothic characters as well but I got a MySQL error when I tried to post)
User avatar
sestir
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun 22 Mar 2015, 16:05
Location: Markaryd
Contact:

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by sestir » Wed 02 Sep 2015, 22:58

Ephraim wrote:What feature are you referring to?
That of having an adjective ending in something meaning like, and then make it into an adverb by appending a suffix with an n in it.
Ephraim wrote:Gothic has an adverb suffix –leikō and [...] a suffix deriving adverbs of manner *–ô.
yes and:
-ba
-þro, -na (motion away)
, -dre (motion towards)
-e (manner)
-r (position)
-is, -os (comparative)
exceptions: air, ƕan, ju, þan, nauh etc. (Based on Lambdin's An Introduction to the Gothic Language, page 131)

The weak declension of adjectives in neuter dative singular ends in -in. Can the instrumental of an adjective function as an adverb?

Most forums use the MySQL data-type 'utf8' which is not UTF-8 but half of it. Wulfilan characters are in the second half of the UTF-8-pane, so a forum has to convert its database to at least utf8mb4 to support it.
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2011, 14:42

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by Prinsessa » Fri 04 Sep 2015, 09:24

Danish and Norwegian have -Ø (null) for adverbial -lig/-leg. However, Icelandic has -lega. I always found it interesting that standard Swedish has -en for both this ending and place names like Australia, whereas Icelandic has -a for both (and Norwegian -a for the latter). [:P]

... Vent. Hallo. Eg skreiv jo på engelsk berre fordi at de gjorde det, så eg trudde eg var i ein ålmenn seksjon og ikkje den skandinaviske seksjonen. Koffor skriv de på engelsk her?????
User avatar
Egerius
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu 12 Sep 2013, 20:29
Location: Not Rodentèrra
Contact:

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by Egerius » Fri 04 Sep 2015, 10:42

My university offers a course in Old West Norse/Old Icelandic (I will participate, because it would be helpful in English linguistics).

If I learned OWN, how well would I understand the modern Scandinavian languages (in written form)?
Languages of Rodentèrra: Buonavallese, Saselvan Argemontese; Wīlandisċ Taulkeisch; More on the road.
Conlang embryo of TELES: Proto-Avesto-Umbric ~> Proto-Umbric
New blog: http://argentiusbonavalensis.tumblr.com
User avatar
sestir
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun 22 Mar 2015, 16:05
Location: Markaryd
Contact:

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by sestir » Fri 04 Sep 2015, 15:17

Prinsessa wrote:Koffor skriv de på engelsk her?????
Aflet, jag kum just from it anat engelskt forum o saw at det var ok.

Wright 348§b
-a:et är från början ett instrumentalsuffix, som (...) afta, bakom; faúra, före; inna, inom; iupa, ovan; ūta, utom; dalaþa, under.

Det gelder meusagötiska men -a e lokatif i andara mål so det synes wel passa ihuppa?
User avatar
sestir
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun 22 Mar 2015, 16:05
Location: Markaryd
Contact:

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by sestir » Fri 04 Sep 2015, 15:45

Egerius wrote:If I learned OWN, how well would I understand the modern Scandinavian languages (in written form)?
I would say it's like learning Latin — then trying to read French & Italian. Your prior knowledge of English will help too but I don't think you will feel like reading books in Swedish after learning ON.
Ephraim
sinic
sinic
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:10
Location: Sweden

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by Ephraim » Sat 05 Sep 2015, 13:16

sestir wrote:Wright 348§b
-a:et är från början ett instrumentalsuffix, som (...) afta, bakom; faúra, före; inna, inom; iupa, ovan; ūta, utom; dalaþa, under.

Det gelder meusagötiska men -a e lokatif i andara mål so det synes wel passa ihuppa?
Jag tror att Wright misstar sig här, det är en äldre lokativändelse, motsvarande PG *-ai. Jämför med *–ai som i PG är dativändelse för a-stammarna, men som ursprungligen går tillbaka till en lokativändelse (ursprunglig dativ hade varit *–ōi). Det är svårt att avgöra utifrån gotiskan eftersom *-ō och *-ai i slutet av ord (motsvarande instrumentalis respektive lokativ > dativ av a-stammar) båda ger -a i slutet av ord i gotiskan. Det syns dock på att nordgermanska har -i och fornhögtyskan -e. Jämför FIs inni, FHT inne, Go inna.

Se Kroonen, Guus (2011), The Proto-Germanic N-Stems: A Study in Diachronic Morphophonology, s. 85

Kroonen rekonstruerar ett system med lokativsuffix *ai, allativ *-0 och ablativ *-anē (den sista vokalen är osäker) som mer eller mindre systematiskt läggs till många prepositionstammar för att bilda riktnings- och platsadverb. Adverben har dessutom typiskt någon växling av slutkonsonanten, och ofta gemination på grund av ett pre-PG *-n via Kluges lag (som nog är lite kontroversiell). Jfr FIs í, inni, inn, innan; Go in, inna, inn, innana; och FIs of, uppi, upp, ofan; Go uf, iupa, iup, iupana.
sestir wrote:The weak declension of adjectives in neuter dative singular ends in -in. Can the instrumental of an adjective function as an adverb?
Det är åtminstone en möjlighet. Vi har ju svenska till godo, med godo, bildat efter mlt to gode, tydligen. Det känns möjligen som att starka former har större sannolikhet att bli adverb då de väl var vanligare att använda fristående.
Prinsessa wrote:Danish and Norwegian have -Ø (null) for adverbial -lig/-leg.
Det fanns som sagt i äldre svenska också. I SAOB hittar jag ett exempel från 1705:
Förthenskul kunna wi, som daglig måste tiuta, / Ei tala om then (paradisets) frögd, som wi ei se och niuta.
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2011, 14:42

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by Prinsessa » Mon 07 Sep 2015, 10:19

Og i dagens produktive rikssvensk er det vel ofte same -t som i andre produktive adverbsformer (som jo òg vert nytta i andre nordiske mål på andre ord enn dei som endar med -lig/-leg, samt -sk på norsk); korkje -a, -en eller -Ø.
User avatar
メタ情報
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat 03 Jan 2015, 03:43

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by メタ情報 » Tue 20 Oct 2015, 11:43

basilius wrote:(2) Pojken gav inte mannen ett äpple.
Horr mange då, eller hvo fikk han i stedet?
basilius wrote:(2) Pojken gav inte mannen något äpple.
Synd.
Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 3226
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2011, 14:42

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by Prinsessa » Tue 20 Oct 2015, 11:47

Det der greier jo norsk, dansk og nederlandsk fint med litt ortografi, og eg brukar gjerne den metoden på svensk òg:

ett äpple (artikkel utan trykk)
étt äpple (talord med trykk)
User avatar
メタ情報
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat 03 Jan 2015, 03:43

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by メタ情報 » Tue 27 Oct 2015, 23:21

Hav ikke-boksvensk svenska /t/ i hvorkekynsartikkelen? Opa genuin sørsvensk, "vanlig svensk", hetr det æ æplæ heller ætt æplæ? (t'æplæ? [:D])
User avatar
sestir
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun 22 Mar 2015, 16:05
Location: Markaryd
Contact:

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by sestir » Wed 28 Oct 2015, 16:20

メタ情報 wrote:Opa genuin sørsvensk, "vanlig svensk", hetr det æ æplæ heller ætt æplæ? (t'æplæ? [:D])
Skåne södra & västra: [it ˋæplə]
Skånska slätten (archaic): [it ˋæ͡ulə] - (?) inte säker på den
Skåne norra & östra: [ɛt ˋæplɛ] (rikssvenskt uttal! :p)

Gutniska verkar ha både "a" och "itt" att välja på. Jag har aldrig hört [æ] eller [ɛ] som obestämd artikel, utom möjligen i Damark.

Edit: ändrade rödmarkerat IPA
Last edited by sestir on Sun 01 Nov 2015, 20:45, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CMunk
metal
metal
Posts: 866
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 14:47
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by CMunk » Wed 28 Oct 2015, 19:32

basilius wrote:Hej!

Kan nogen revidere de danske eksempler, som jeg har komponeret?

Specifikt:

(1) I går slog drengen ikke manden.

'Yesterday the boy didn't beat the man.'

(2) Drengen gav ikke manden et æble.

'The boy didn't give an apple to the man.'

(3) I går gav drengen ikke manden et æble.

'Yesterday the boy didn't give an apple to the man.'

Eksemplerne skal illustrere en påstand om de danske (og generelt kontinentalskandinaviske, forstår jeg) ordstillingsregler...

Undskyld mig, og tak :)
[tick] [tick] [tick] Det er gode og velformede danske sætninger. Der er intet i vejen med dem.
Aszev wrote:
basilius wrote:...For the record, and for those Danish speakers who may visit this thread: the Danish versions of my "simpler" examples.

(A)

Drengen slog ikke manden.
Manden slog drengen ikke.
- These are supposed to describe the same situation, 'The boy didn't beat/hit the man' (with different intonation and placement of phrasal stress in English), neither of the two allowing for the alternative reading, 'The man didn't beat/hit the boy'. Is this correct?
Kinda, I'd say that your second phrase could also be read as the opposite, even if it could sound weird to some. Essentially, unstressed and familiar information can be moved leftwards in a sentence, which for example always is the case with unstressed pronouns. (Mannen slog honom inte is neutral; Mannen slog inte honom would have 'slog' or 'honom' emphasized.)
Det er rigtigt at kendt og ubetonet information kan flyttes frem før sætningsadverbialet på dansk, men det gælder kun for pronomener.

(A2) Manden slog drengen ikke. [tick]
Kan altså kun læses med "drengen" som subjekt og "manden" som fokuseret objekt.

Manden slog han ikke.
Den samme sætning med et pronomen som subjekt.

Manden slog ham ikke.
Dette er den neutrale sætning med "manden" som subjekt og "ham" som objekt.

Manden slog ikke ham. eller nærmere Manden slog ikke ham.
Her er objektet "ham" fokuseret, nærmest demonstrativt.

Manden slog ikke drengen.
"Manden" er subjekt, "drengen" er objekt. Neutral ordstilling.
Edit: Der findes en form for spøgende ordstilling, som kan bruges i spørgsmål af typen:

Gjorde han det, eller gjorde han det ikke?

Denne sætning giver anledning til lægmandsanalysen "S, eller S ikke." hvor S er den spørgende sætning. Det giver os sætninger som:

Slog han drengen, eller slog han drengen ikke?

Den sidste del af sætningen er ikke grammatisk. Den grammatiske sætning ville lyde ... eller slog han ikke drengen?

Slog han drengen i går, eller slog han drengen i går ikke?

Her ses det at sætningsadverbiet ikke kommer efter det frie adverbial i går. Men det gælder kun for denne spøgende genre.
aszev wrote:
basilius wrote:(B) I går gav drengen manden et æble.

Upon reading some more on the topic, I realize that full NP's (rather than pronouns) as prepositionless "dative" complements must be problematic in colloquial Danish. Therefore, the question is whether (B) is grammatical in conservative written language, at least.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to construe an equivalent with a "dative" pronoun. Maybe, like the following:

(B') I går gav ham drengen et æble.

- and with negation:

(B'') I går gav ham drengen ikke et æble.

- but that's essentially a wild guess.
In Swedish it would be grammatical as you write it: I går gav pojken mannen ett äpple.

With the pronoun: I går gav pojken honom ett äpple.
Negated: I går gav pojken honom inte ett äpple.

You can move the dative pronoun to the left if it's unstressed and the subject is a noun, much like in my reply above. However, in some contexts this might sound a bit unusual to some.
(B) I går gav drengen manden et æble. [tick]
Substantivfraser som dativobjekter uden præposition er ikke noget problem på dansk. Måske forekommer de sjældnere i talesprog, men de er ikke arkaiske på nogen måde.

(B') I går gav ham drengen et æble. [cross]
Man kan ikke flytte dativobjektet frem før subjektet på dansk. Den grammatiske sætning ville lyde: I går gav drengen ham et æble.

(B'') I går gav ham drengen ikke et æble. [cross]
Igen kommer dativobjektet for tidligt. Det skal komme efter subjektet, men før sætningsadverbial: I går gav drengen ham ikke et æble.
Last edited by CMunk on Thu 29 Oct 2015, 10:53, edited 1 time in total.
Native: :dan: | Fluent: :uk: | Less than fluent: :deu:, :jpn:, :epo: | Beginner: Image, :fao:, :non:
Creating: :con:Jwar Nong, :con:Mhmmz
Ephraim
sinic
sinic
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:10
Location: Sweden

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by Ephraim » Wed 28 Oct 2015, 20:52

メタ情報 wrote:Hav ikke-boksvensk svenska /t/ i hvorkekynsartikkelen? Opa genuin sørsvensk, "vanlig svensk", hetr det æ æplæ heller ætt æplæ? (t'æplæ? [:D])
Det absolut vanligaste torde vara att ha /t/, former utan /t/ låter märkliga i mina öron, men det kan kanske inte uteslutas att de förekommer någonstans. Det är förstås avgörande i sammanhanget att det historiskt är ett geminerat tt, vilket inte regelbundet förmjukades till ð (det stadiet kan man se i stavningen i vissa äldre handskrifter) för att sedan falla bort helt. Jämför det, sprungit och bordet med obetonat kort t.
User avatar
Aszev
admin
admin
Posts: 1476
Joined: Tue 11 May 2010, 04:46
Location: Upp.
Contact:

Re: Spørsmål/frågor om skandinaviska / Questions about Scand

Post by Aszev » Fri 30 Oct 2015, 16:55

sestir wrote:Skåne södra & västra: [it ˋæplɛ]
Skånska slätten (archaic): [it ˋæ͡ulɛ] - (?) inte säker på den
Skåne norra & östra: [ɛt ˋæplɛ] (rikssvenskt uttal! :p)
Är vokalen verkligen [æ]? Borde det inte vara något mer i stil med [et ˈɛplə] ?
Sound change works in mysterious ways.

Image CE
Post Reply