# Icelandic: Var Verið



## ShakeyX

Just at work and got forwarded this e-mail.

Það var verið að biðja mig um að kíkja á flakkarann uppi sem virkar ekki af einhverjum ástæðum, ég sagði að ég myndi láta vita af þessu, spurning hvort að jake geti ekki kíkt

Það var VERIÐ? I don't understand what this could mean, is this grammatically correct?

It was asking me to check on "flakkarann/name used for this portable Hard Drive" upstairs which doesn't work for some reason, I said that I would let you know of this, "SPURNING"?? Question... whether jake can not take a look.

-Who or what is það
-var verið WTF?
-Spurning hvort, seems like it should be the verb, spyrjaðu here rather than the noun spurning.


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Það is a dummy subject, it's not really anything.

I'm not sure whether it's technically grammatically correct, but _var verið_  makes sense to me at any rate. It just means this person _had been_ asked  to look at the external hard drive (I assume rather than the tramp ).  Literally "it was been" and I agree that makes very little sense in  English.

_Spurning hvort_ is a commonly used phrase and  it's perfectly correct. "Spurning hvort Jake geti ekki kíkt" literally  means "question whether Jake can't take a look", a contraction of the  longer form "það er spurning hvort..." "it is a question whether...".  Basically the person is _wondering_ whether you can't take a look.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I guess it's true what they say that you really are forced into learning a language when you're surrounded by it.
I'm not sure how the best way is to go about explaining this to you, because I think you really need to have a good solid of what a standard expletive passive in Icelandic before we can go on to this new form that has only recently appeared in the language. It's one of those '_you need to know the rules in order to know how to break them_' kind of things. I know you have Colloquial Icelandic by Daisy Neijmann. Read the language points in Chapter 13 and look at the impersonal passive information. Then from there the explanation will be easier.



> -Spurning hvort, seems like it should be the verb, spyrjaðu here rather than the noun spurning.


To me, a literal reading also makes sense. Does it not to you? In quick office-style emails anyway.

"I was asked to go and check out the portable hard drive upstairs which isn't working for some reason. I'd said I'd look into it and let them know, maybe Jake can check it out."

_Spurning_ does mean _question_, but it's also like a 'matter' (for someone to take care of) or even in some ways used in a way that English speakers might use 'idea' ('It might be an idea for X to do Y'). You could also translate that as "It might be an idea for Jake to go and check it out".


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Maybe it would help to think of _það var verið að biðja mig_ as _it happened that I was asked_ or something, although it's completely grammatically different. Incidentally there are plenty of results for "var verið" on google including online news headings, so I would strongly assume that it is grammatically correct.

Or like this, það var verið að gera eitthvað = the act of doing something (gera eitthvað) was completed in the past = something was done. I'm racking my brain trying to think of how to explain this in terms of the English, I can just see what it means...


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Maybe it would help to think of _það var verið að biðja mig _as _it happened that I was asked _or something, although it's completely grammatically different. Incidentally there are plenty of results for "var verið" on google including online news headings, so I would strongly assume that it is grammatically correct.


It's less _var verið _and more _var verið að biðja mig _which causes the question of grammaticality to go a bit iffy.

What's going on is what's known as _nýja þolmyndin_ ('The New Passive') which linguists have written extensively about over the last 30 years but it only really gained popular ground in the last 15-20 years. Older speakers cringe and whine and complain and write in to the papers ridiculing the youth with such examples while the younger generation are fine with it. The big surveys were all done about 10-15 years ago and found extremely wide acceptance in school kids around the age of 15, so that brings us to today where these kids have grown up and are the 25-30 year olds working in offices now.


----------



## Alxmrphi

This is probably the most user-friendly information (i.e. non-thesis) on the topic.
The introductory example actually uses almost the same construction as we're talking about here.
Check it out.

Here is a snippet from the Powerpoint presentation:


> In a 1999 nationwide survey, *93%* of surveyed adults found this sentence completely *unacceptable*.
> *73%* of adolescents found it completely *acceptable*!


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Alxmrphi said:


> "I was asked to go and check out the portable hard drive upstairs which isn't working for some reason. I'd said *I'd look into it and let them know*, maybe Jake can check it out."



I think you're extrapolating a bit there, it doesn't say that in the source text. It might imply that, but probably just means that the author said he/she would let the recipient of the email know about the problem. Probably the person who forwarded the email to Jake. Without more context it's not possible to say, but "looking into it" is a leap.


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Alxmrphi said:


> Older speakers cringe and whine and complain and write in to the papers ridiculing the youth with such examples while the younger generation are fine with it.



Aha one of those issues  I must admit I don't think it's the most elegant way to express the meaning, but it makes sense to my barbaric non-native ears.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Silver_Biscuit said:


> I think you're extrapolating a bit there, it doesn't say that in the source text. It might imply that, but probably just means that the author said he/she would let the recipient of the email know about the problem. Probably the person who forwarded the email to Jake. Without more context it's not possible to say, but "looking into it" is a leap.


Yeah, I guess so. If the question had been about that I probably wouldn't have written it but I spent too long wondering how to make it sound fine in English so I think I did trans/vent (translate+invent) something there. It wasn't with any intent to confuse, I promise.


----------



## Tjahzi

Hm, isn't the function of _verið_ just to mark the tense? As in, the simple past form of the phrase would be_Það var að biðja mig = It was asked me(=I was asked), _with the dummy subject, copula, infinite verb and (grammatical) object. If we want to change the tense from here, we'd have to modify the copula, meaning _var_ becoming _var verið_ to form the supine (both words technically constituting the copula), giving us _Það var __verið__ að biðja mig = It has been asked me(=I have been asked)_, or am I wrong here? 

Out of curiosity, would the phrase _Það væri__ að biðja mig_ be grammatical, and would it translate to _It would have been asked me_/_I would have been asked._

On a side note, Swedish also has an "impersonal passive" employing a dummy pronoun (normally translated to _one_ or _you _in English) that is frequently used. Although it's grammatically different from this Icelandic construction, it seems to be used similarly.



Alxmrphi said:


> This is probably the most user-friendly information (i.e. non-thesis) on the topic.
> The introductory example actually uses almost the same construction as we're talking about here.
> Check it out.
> 
> Here is a snippet from the Powerpoint presentation:


Did  you read the entire presentation Alex? I found it very interesting, but there  were a couple of things that I didn't understand/disagreed with.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Hm, isn't the function of _verið just to mark the tense? As in, the simple past form of the phrase would beÞað var að biðja mig = It was asked me(=I was asked), with the dummy subject, copula, infinite verb and (grammatical) object._


This would be "It was asking me" or something like that.
You'd need something more than 'var' to mark a closed past event, and that's why _verið _is used here. Though you could have (in terms of the NC) _var beðið mig_ (which is the example talked about in the presentation). I'm following what you're saying, but I think you've missed an important point. There is nothing unusual about the tenses used here which are problematic. The function of the expletive passive is that you cannot refer to anything definite.

This is is fine: - _Stráknum var hrint_.
If you use the expletive passive, it's: _Það var hrint litlum strák_.
Once you make it definite, it's when it "should" become ungrammatical: _Það var hrint lit*la* strák*num*.
_That's what this innovation is about. Case is also preserved in the accusative, when in any normal passive usage accusative always reverts to nominative.

In the same vein, you can restore grammaticality to the phrase in question by removing 'mig' from the sentence. The '_var verið að biðja_' is unproblematic then.
As it says in the presentation (which I did read, yes ):


> A Deﬁniteness effect: In the New Construction, Deﬁnite NPs are allowed. In the Impersonal “Expletive Passive”, they are ungrammatical.
> This is how native speakers recognize the New Construction.


----------



## Tjahzi

Alxmrphi said:


> This would be "It was asking me" or something like that.
> You'd need something more than 'var' to mark a closed past event, and that's why _verið _is used here. Though you could have (in terms of the NC) _var beðið mig_ (which is the example talked about in the presentation). I'm following what you're saying, but I think you've missed an important point. There is nothing unusual about the tenses used here which are problematic.


What originally bothered me with this example was the amount of verbs and confusion regarding the function of each constituent in terms of tense.

I made some serious errors in my above analysis, so here's another attempt. The "impersonal passive construction" contains a (dummy) subject, an auxiliary (not copula, my bad), a supine verb, an object and possibly an infinite verb (phrase), depending of the valency of the first verb (of course, technically everything but the subject is part of a giant VP, in turn containing minor VPs, but I'm simplifying). If we apply this to the examples found in the presentation, we get:

_Það __var beðið mig að vaska upp_, _Það__ var sagt honom að fara _and_ Það var   bólusett okkur_. 

However, when I tried to take on Shakey's example using this "method", I misstook _verið _for being part of the coupla, while it's in fact the "main" verb (however, I still believe its function to be to just mark tense (or aspect, technically)) and ended up with an infinite in my above example. If correctly applied, it should look like this.

_Það var verið að biðja mig um að kíkja_. 

So if we have concluded that this phrase translates to _I had been asked to..._, I assume that the auxiliary determines _tense_ and the presence of _ver__ið_ marks (perfective) aspect, which, if correct, would give the following (reworked) translations.

_Það__ er beðið mig - I'm being asked.
__Það__ var beðið mig - I was asked._
_Það__ sé beðið mig - __I would be asked. _

_Það__ er __verið að biðja mig __ - __I have been asked._
_Það__ var __verið að biðja mig__ -_ _I had been asked._
_Það__ sé __verið að biðja mig__ -_ _I would have been asked._

While I don't expect all of these to be grammatical (or "ever used"), am I making sense at all?


----------



## Alxmrphi

I was with you until you got to the final examples.

I've never heard those kinds of structures and I think even natives who are completely comfortable with the new passive would just reject these as wrong (when matched with the translations). In my opinion, you've made a strong connection with English tenses to Icelandic tenses which I don't believe exists. The two structures, in my opinion, are different at a more fundamental level to be able to say "er [supine]" = "I'm being" or "var [supine]" = "I was". I would argue against any correspondence that puts them in an equal level where a shift in one Icelandic sentence necessitates the change as aspectual understanding in an English translation.

I'm not sure what we get out of, in an exploration of a syntactic feature, 'filling holes' that don't even exist and forcing an understanding onto them.
I think that's just a recipe for confusion. One thing that can be addressed is _það var verið að_ - you've marked that as pluperfect, but I'm not too sure why. I'd imagine a context-less or 'generic' example to be the present perfect. I don't see how 'er + [supine]' qualifies the present perfect in your example. That's like reporting a present habitual state which is especially odd with a verb like _biðja_. You would use the present auxiliary for either a habitual reading or one that is going on in the present (or close-to-present) time.

I think extracting to use the present subjunctive is taking a step too far and into the world where linguists try to fill in gaps in what languages _can do_ but basically choose _not_ to. The fact for me is that an expletive passive is weird enough cross-linguistically but to have alternating new options based around the question of definite argument reference, tying it up to the English tense system just makes no real sense. I have my own personal (not thought-out idea floating around in my head that I haven't quantified) that the _var verið _construction comes into play as a bridge between the ungrammatically of the the new passive and yet keep the definite reference in a construction like an expletive passive. I'm not saying that's where it _comes from_ but might be preferred for people who have those doubts.

Anyway, half the population probably rejects these structures outright, and a lot of people when questioned would probably begin to doubt themselves.
We can't exactly talk about this as if it's got a big consensus behind it. It's been written about a lot, but people argue about the validity of it and how it works.
If you put "New Passive Icelandic" into Google and especially if you select for PDFs you can see how many people are trying to argue different things and quote examples in other papers as being different, or not valid for reasons X,Y,Z. We're at a level where something is definitely agreed to exist, but it's not mapped out and standardised so, again, the link to different specific aspects and tenses just seems a bit, how can I say, _fruitless_ .

Even the standard impersonal passive is hard to translate into English without a big circumlocution. 

"_Það var dansað mikið_"
- There was a lot of dancing(?)
- People danced a lot(?)
- A lot of dancing happened(?)

Throw in a temporal modifier and you can get:

"_Það var dansað mikið að undanförnu_"
- There has been a lot of dancing recently(?)

...then_ var verið að dansa_... That's when I have just got to hold up my hands and say it's above my pay grade at this moment.
Ask me in a year or two.


----------



## Tjahzi

Hm, which structures exactly are you referring to? 2) is from the  presentation and 5) is based on SB's translation, 3) and 6) were the  ones I referred to in my final comment. But are you ruling out any 1)/4)  vs 2)/5) distinction as well?



Alxmrphi said:


> One thing that can be addressed is _það var verið að_ - you've  marked that as pluperfect, but I'm not too sure why. I'd imagine a  context-less or 'generic' example to be the present perfect.


From the examples in the presentation, I got the impression that _var_ is used to mark paste tense and from there I just assumed that _er_ would be used to mark present. It seemed unlikely that the phrase _We are being inoculate__d _wouldn't exist, and I could find no other way to form it than changing the tense of _vera_. Similarly, since SB translated_ var verið_ as _had been_, which made perfect sense to me since the role of the supine is to distinguish the _past perfective _from the _past __imperfective_, I assumed it was used to mark aspect here as well. 

Again, I'm just trying to determine what verb actually says what and how to conjugate it according to tense. Also, I'm not so much making this up based on English but on Swedish, which also has the "supine hole".  

As for lack of consensus and the subject being debated, I'm fully convinced that given the widespread usage among younger generations, the incorporation of this construction into standard language is not to be stopped by any prescriptive purist efforts. Even in a linguistic community like that of Iceland, arguably the most isolated and conservative in the world, an internal evolution can't be stopped simply by telling people it's "wrong". At the end of the day, they will speak exactly the way they feel like _(Góðan daginn)._

And yes, it's very odd to translate the passive into English for a number of reasons, however, that doesn't necessarily mean that the forms don't exist in Icelandic.

Anyhow, the tenses was actually just a sub-issue. I'll come back tomorrow with some thoughts regarding the active/passive/impersonal relationship and definiteness. Looking forward to hear your take on it as well.


----------



## ShakeyX

Okay so I just read a bit of the presentation and I understand it's just something you have to deal with although I probably won't feel comfortable using it for a while. Anyway, what form is verið in then? and what is it declining to if anything? The thing that confuses me is not the construction itself but why it is in neutral.. or the supine although var should not trigger the bóðháttur or whatever it is called


----------



## Alxmrphi

ShakeyX said:


> Okay so I just read a bit of the presentation and I understand it's just something you have to deal with although I probably won't feel comfortable using it for a while. Anyway, what form is verið in then? and what is it declining to if anything? The thing that confuses me is not the construction itself but why it is in neutral.. or the supine although var should not trigger the bóðháttur or whatever it is called


Sorry about the side-step we took in the thread. It's probably better to move that to Private Messages to continue that part of the discussion.
_Verið_ is the past participle/supine. It's always the same form, so if you said _ég hef verið_ you would never get any agreement because that form is basically third person singular neuter, which comes up as a 'default' form in loads of different cases in Icelandic. You don't get forms like verinn, only the _sagnbót_ (which is what I think you meant).

_Boðháttur_ is the imperative mood (giving commands to people).

_Það var beðið - _Closed event in the past
_Það var verið að biðja - _This could take on many different tenses depending on the context of the situation. I think for complete accuracy (because I feel like I'd be jumping the gun in providing definitive translations) it might be an idea for a native to come in and give some examples they feel would shed light on and what, in their opinion, a good English translation would be. The fact is (as we mentioned above) the construction is so alien to a readily-acceptable way to put it into English it doesn't nicely fit into just one tense. I can feel my head beginning to spin again...


----------



## ShakeyX

So það var beðið is the exact same as hann var beðinn in terms of the fact the past participle is being used that declines to the subject, whereas það var verið is the sagnbót, or is it still the past participle declining to það (although I guess in this construction you might never know as það is always going to be the "dummy subject" so it would always be neutral.)

It's just the fact that the verb vera is twice in a row that is throwing me off.. I have no trouble with Ég var beðinn, or ég hef verið... beðið? eða biðja... not sure how things work after verið in that construction.. but yeh I get how they make sense. This just seems weird.

So in short is this construction a direct example of this new phenomenon and it's more something I should look out for than use if I want to get down the "proper" icelandic first. And if that's the case what would be a suitable substitution with the same meaning?


----------



## Alxmrphi

> So það var beðið is the exact same as hann var beðinn in terms of the fact the past participle is being used that declines to the subject, whereas það var verið is the sagnbót, or is it still the past participle declining to það (although I guess in this construction you might never know as það is always going to be the "dummy subject" so it would always be neutral.)


Spot on! When linguists try to figure out what forms are being used in some papers I've read, they have to design questions specifically with masculine and feminine nouns because if they look for a neuter response, you can never tell if there is no agreement (default) or if there is agreement to the neuter (which you can't tell because it's the same form).


> So in short is this construction a direct example of this new phenomenon and it's more something I should look out for than use if I want to get down the "proper" icelandic first. And if that's the case what would be a suitable substitution with the same meaning?


The only innovation is the fact that you're only supposed to be able to use það var [past participle/supine] (whatever you want to call it) without any reference to specific people or definite nouns. Then, also there is no nomimative/accusative alternation either.

It might be better to illustrate it with an easier example.
People are often corrected in Icelandic when they say_ það var sagt mér_. This is the new type of usage because naturally "to me" is a direct reference.
There is usually someone hanging around every conversation ready to pounce in with: _Nei, nei nei. Þú átt að segja 'Mér var sagt_'. That is the ordinary passive which retains dative case (as is the case in your Biggest Loser question).


----------



## ShakeyX

so Mér var sagt reflects the standard english passive "It was said to me" whereas in turn það var sagt mér seems to be what a person learning english would literally translate that sentence to in Icelandic.. right?

Does this have something to do with icelanders proficiency in english slowly filtering into their own constructions. I've heard a lot from people that they feel icelandic retains all it's own words, but starts using them in english ways.


----------



## ShakeyX

Oh correction... Hann sagði mér is the normal he said... then to flip it into the passive it would be... mér var sagt (af einhverjum) RIGHT?!?! Yeh I got this.

But again as I said about, það var sagt mér seems more like the way we always decode translations first step by step and then into the literal english, this is the vice versa of that in icelandic? Right?


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Oh correction... Hann sagði mér is the normal he said... then to flip it into the passive it would be... mér var sagt (af einhverjum) RIGHT?!?! Yeh I got this.



Mér var sagt = I was told (lit. _to me was said_)

Do we really say "It was said to me that..." in English? If we do, I don't think enough to warrant the claim that it's so pervasive that other languages change their structure to it. There's more going on here than English influence (which might not be any). It's never wise to totally rule things out though.


> But again as I said about, það var sagt mér seems more like the way we always decode translations first step by step and then into the literal english, this is the vice versa of that in icelandic? Right?


I'm not 100% sure what you mean here?
Can you have another go at explaining just so I can be sure I follow what you're saying?


----------



## ShakeyX

Hmmm just that It was said to me, while not being a normal english expression, is used to sound sort of old and poetic right? I was just linking in my head the fact some icelanders have said that icelandic is influenced in sentence structure by english occasionally, by younger people, and that this construction from the presentation seems to be something that younger people use.

Is there any explanation where this construction came from? and when I was talking about the substitute, if old people frowned upon its use, what would they use instead? For example in the Það var verið að biðja, what would be an old persons rendition of this.

I do apologise I always find it hard to voice my point as I lack some of the more, technical words.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Hmmm just that It was said to me, while not being a normal english expression, is used to sound sort of old and poetic right? I was just linking in my head the fact some icelanders have said that icelandic is influenced in sentence structure by english occasionally, by younger people, and that this construction from the presentation seems to be something that younger people use.


That's hypothesising that young Icelanders are influenced by old/poetic English that isn't really used in the media they're exposed to, right?
I can see there's a connection your mind wants to make and that is great for working out patterns, but sometimes your (one's) mind can get ahead of itself. It happens to me all the time. 


> Is there any explanation where this construction came from?


There are a few hypotheses put forward in that presentation. The details in there are set out in a much better way I could ever describe it so your best bet is to take some time when you have it and just click through it a few times.


> [W]hen I was talking about the substitute, if old people frowned upon its use, what would they use instead? For example in the Það var verið að biðja, what would be an old persons rendition of this?


Well, first, I believe '_var verið að biðja mig_' would be considered slightly more acceptable to people who reject the new passive (það var beðið mig) though there is a relation in structure. Also, that's not just for old people so I'd be careful not to categorise all people who don't accept this structure as old. You don't want to make a bad social _faux pas_!
Anyway, the answer to your question is: _Ég var beðinn_.

_Einhver bað mig
Ég var beðinn

_If you're going to state who asked you, you'd just use the active voice and not the passive. It's unusual to use the passive and then state 'af + einhverjum' like we are more prone to do in English. At least that's what I've noticed in my experience. As always, what I say I don't pass off as fact but what I believe to be true (all caveats included).


----------



## ShakeyX

All is understood  Maybe as a closing gift you could show a small 4-5 sentence dialogue that once uses the normal constructions and repeated but instead using this NC... It would not only help with seeing the difference but also seeing cases where the passive would even be used.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I wouldn't easily be able to find a good example in the time I've got before I have to head out, but I can quickly type what the Handbook of Icelandic says about it, then translate it for you:



> *Þolmynd*
> Þolymnd er oft notuð þegar lögð er meiri áhersla á þolanda en geranda. Þolandinn verður þá frumlag en gerandi er ekki endilega nefndur.:
> _Ég var laminn. Mér var hrint._
> Sögnin lemja stýrir þolfalli í germynd, sbr._ lemja mig_, en það verður að nefnifalli (ég) i þolymdn (ég var laminn). Sögnin _hrinda_ stýrir þágufalli í germynd, sbr. _hrinda mer_, og það fall helst í þolmynd (mér var hrint). Fram er komin ný málvenja í íslensku (nýja þolymyndin). Þá er sagt „það var lamið mig“ i stað _ég var laminn_ og „það var hrint mér“ i stað _mér var hrint_. Þessi málvenja brýtur gegn íslenskri málhefð og er ekki við hæfi i formlegu rituðu máli.



*The Passive*
The passive is often used when more emphasis is placed on the patient (object of the verb) than the doer (agent). The patient then becomes the subject and the doer (agent) is no longer stated:
_Ég var laminn. Mér var hrint.
_The verb _lemja _governs the accusative case in the active voice, cf. lemja mig, and that becomes nominative (ég) in the passive (ég var laminn). The verb _hrinda _governs the dative case in the active mood and that case is held in the passive (mér var hrint). A new usage has come about in Icelandic (the new passive). Then „það var lamið mig“ is said instead of_ ég var laminn_ and „það var hrint mér“ instead of  _mér var hrint_. This usage goes against traditional Icelandic usage and is not appropriate in formal written language.


----------



## ShakeyX

Quick side note, is the lögð and er switched in that first sentence just out of the stylistic choice you were talking about.. as it is after the conjunction "þegar"... to put it more "normally/normal to me" þegar er lögð... like When there is laid more emphasis?


----------



## Alxmrphi

ShakeyX said:


> Quick side note, is the lögð and er switched in that first sentence just out of the stylistic choice you were talking about.. as it is after the conjunction "þegar"... to put it more "normally/normal to me" þegar er lögð... like When there is laid more emphasis?



Exactly, stílfærsla (stylistic inversion).
You either need a það or the switch in order to keep the finite (conjugated) verb in the second position in the clause. It could also be -> þegar meiri áhersla er lögð.


----------



## ShakeyX

Oh second side note, I posted before about something from simpsons... Það fer sýra í rúmið

how does the dummy subject in this NC and the dummy subject here relate... what are there reasonings for being there in both cases and do they somewhat relate (trying to lock down this dummy subject, I udnerstand it for passive constructions using verbs which govern the dative and in this NC.. but not so much here, and I was wondering if it was for similar reasons that I am just not seeing.


EDIT: is there some sort of link to a basic introduction to the dummy subject, I havent seen it in my grammar book as of yet.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I wouldn't say all dummy pronouns have something in common in their usage (beyond needing to be there to fulfill syntactic requirements).. Especially in these two cases, there is nothing in my view that connects them.


----------

