Re: Probability of Article Replacement?
| From: | taliesin the storyteller <taliesin@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, February 28, 2003, 15:46 |
|---|
* Tristan said on 2003-02-28 11:40:13 +0100
> taliesin the storyteller wrote:
>
> >All the forms (well, not all the allowable alternates, I think I'll
> >make a webpage...):
> >
> > | masculine | feminine | neuter |
> >---------+-+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
> >singular | (en) stein | (ei) hoppe | (et) sverd |
> > | steinen | hoppa | sverdet |
> > | den steinen | den hoppa | det sverdet |
> >---------+-----------------+----------------+-----------------+
> >plural | (flere) steiner | (flere) hopper | (flere) sverd |
> > | (alle) steinene | (alle) hoppene | (alle) sverdene |
> > | de steinene | de hoppene | de sverdene |
> >---------+-----------------+----------------+-----------------+
>
> How did this system come about? It seems really odd (the fact that the
> same (modified) morpheme(?) forms the indefinite article and the
> definite suffix in the singular).
Uh? The definite suffix is from a norse pronoun IIRC (hinn? -inn?),
the definite standalone article is from Danish (Not using the def.
suffix but using the def. article instead is somewhat correct, but
very booky and snotty - and Danified) and the indefinite article is
from the (norse) word for one, inflected for gender:
einn (m) ein(f) eitt (n)
The resemblances in writing are accidental[*].
(All IIRC as we get to learn this in high school and that's getting
to be a while ago.)
[*] Which means they aren't and should I put you in contact with
the Norse-specialists at the uni.? :)
t.