Re: Old Norse (was Re: New to the list)

On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Oskar Gudlaugsson wrote:

>Padraic wrote:
>
>> >Funny thing is, not a single "yes" appears in any of the ancient texts
>>(the
>> >Sagas).
>>
>>I didn't mean it literally! I remember "ek vil (eigi) that, herra."
>>Of course, eigi = not. In English the yes and no would probably be
>>there.
>
>Forget the "herra". I don't recall seeing it in a saga. The setting of the
>sagas was more "egalitarian" than that of Feudal Europe at the same time.
>There were no peasants that had to say "Lord", "Sire", etc to bypassing
>knights so as not to have their heads chopped off (or was that Japan? :).
>And Icelandic (and Old Norse) has an unusual way of positioning its
>negative, so the sentence would be "ek vil that eigi", or, more
>stylistically, "that vil ek eigi".
Audhun says it at least twice to the King of Denmark. "Gudh thakki
ydhr, herra" and "Eigi ma ek that vit, herra". He also thus addresses
the King of Sweden: "Thvi, herra, at hann tha at mer". I wouldn't
expect him to address his chums that way!

>>Fine with me: English has no honorific pronoun, and imperatives
>>(often involving nearly impossible sexual manoevers) are quite
>>common.
>
>:) Well, I was mostly referring to my Ecuadorian girlfriend, who, being a
>Spanish-speakers, finds imperatives rather uncouth.
Spanish speaker are very polite in that respect!

>And I think she misses
>her 'usted', poor thing (in Iceland, any single person is "þú", whether s/he
>is the president, a worker, an infant, or a cat). As regards English, the
>honorific pronoun has overtaken the normal 'thou' (I know you know that).
Actually no. At best a quasi honorific. Only used when addressing God:
and that, I think, is only because in Latin he is addressed "tu".
I.e., a direct translation. If I remember right, there was a
flirtation in Middle English with honorific pronouns, but it never
caught on. I think using ye or you as a singular honorific.

In modern English, there is no common equivalent of usted. In court
you address the judge as "your honour" (I suppose more or less how
usted / vuestra merced got started), Slick Willie can rightly be
addressed as "your excellency" - but these aren't really common
enough, at least in my opinion, to be called pronouns in the way
usted is.

>I see this as the single most annoying, confusing, and intolerable
>part of the
>language: failure to make a singular-plural distinction in the second person
>pronouns.
Gee, all thou has to do is start using it! If thee likes, I'll
address thee in the 2nd singular at all times. :)

>>But I know they _had_ them, and it seems attached to the house, to
>>boot! But I expect an Icelandic winter night is no time to be
>>wandering about outside searching for the loo.
>
>Actually I'm sure you'll find scenes including the toilet in an Icelandic
>sagas. It's just their kind of humour, say, something were a poor fellow is
>murdered while sitting on the toilet, unable to reach his sword in time ;)
Sounds more like suicide to me. He didn't pay attention to
"The man who stands at a strange thresh hold should be cautious
before he crosses it..." or "A wayfarer should not walk unarmed
but have his weapons to hand..."

Though I guess it would be hard to defend an assault from behind,
as it were, in such a situation. ;^)

Padraic.

>Oskar