# Icelandic: 'stýfður' imperative



## Silver_Biscuit

Hi,

I've noticed recently that the very helpful website at bin.arnastofnun.is has added a field to the Boðháttur section of verb pages. It used to just have the forms for singular and plural, but now there's a bit above marked 'stýfður' (truncated). This seems to be just the verb stem in most cases, the bit that the ðu/du/tu or ið is added to in order to form the imperative. For example for vera it has ver, gera - ger, fara - far, segja - seg.

What does this mean? Could I say 'seg mér', for example, instead of 'segðu mér'? I've never seen this before.
Is it perhaps indicating that I could say 'seg þú mér' instead, or is it supposed to represent speech?
I don't understand.

Thanks for any help.


----------



## sindridah

Hello Silver_Biscuit.

It is called "Stýfður boðháttur" and Stýfður boðháttur is if i allow me to quote here:

"Fyrsta leiðin er að finna stofn sagnorða (sem er gert með því að taka nafnháttinn (að hoppa, að elska) og fjarlægja endinguna _-a_ nema þetta sé veik sögn sem endar á _-aði_ í þátíð eins og _skrifa_) og kallast þetta stýfður boðháttur og er hann í annarri persónu eintölu."

"The first way is to find stem of the verbs ( wich is done by taking the infinitive ( to jump, to love ) and remove the -a ending unless it's a weak verb wich ends in -aði in preterit for example skrifa ) and is this called *stýfður boðháttur* and he is in second person singular."


Does this do any help?


"I sense a little mis-understanding on my part but feel free to correct me"


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Right, so it is just the verb stem? 
You would never write or say 'seg' or 'ver', for example? 

That's what I thought, but do you know what this has to do with the imperative mood (boðháttur)? I understand the 'stýfður' bit, but not the 'boðháttur'.


----------



## sindridah

Yes ofcourse.

*Dæmi*



_Tak_ sæng þína og _gakk_!
_Les_ þú þessar bækur drengur!
_Vinn_ núna verk þín!
_Hlæ_ þú ekki að mér stúlka!

Alltough it's a very silly and ridiculous imperative/icelandic, no one speaks like this. 

You cold write for example "semmer instead of segðu mér" or "hvadda instead hvað ertu ( að gera? )" if you wanna impersonate 13-15 year old icelandic girls on their adolescence


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

So you _could_ say 'seg mér'? 
I understand 'les þú' and 'hlæ þú' because that seems to be just 'lestu' and 'hlæðu' separated out into two words (like the relationship between 'ert þú' and 'ertu'). But I never knew you could say something like 'tak sæng þína og gakk'. 
Well, you learn something new every day. 

But you wouldn't advise saying this rather than 'taktu sæng þína og gakktu'? Does it always sound like teenagers if you leave off the 'tu/ðu/du' bit?


----------



## sindridah

Well actually i don't have a clue if "tak sæng þína og gakk" is a correct Icelandic i somehow doubt it, Nowadays we would probably say "taktu sængina þína og gakktu ( alltough i would rather choose _farðu_ ) , ( Take your duvet and walk, you would rather say take your duvet and go), right? 

Again this imperative sound like an old Icelandic not really the daily parlance.

No not really, really just the typing on internet communication programs not so much their sound.

They write "gemmer" instead of gefðu mér and also as i mentioned "semmer" instead of segðu mér and "hvadda gera" instead of hvað ertu að gera and "hættisu" instead of hættu þessu but regarding the sound of the pronunciation you really can't notice because most icelanders talk so fast, If i would ask you in person in Icelandic  about "hvadda gera?" and "hvað ertu að gera?" I doubt you would notice wich pronunciation i'm doing.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> They write "gemmer" instead of gefðu mér and also as i mentioned  "semmer" instead of segðu mér and "hvadda gera" instead of hvað ertu að  gera and "hættisu" instead of hættu þessu but regarding the sound of the  pronunciation you  really can't notice because most icelanders talk so fast, If i would ask  you in person in Icelandic  about "hvadda gera?" and "hvað ertu að  gera?" I doubt you would notice wich pronunciation i'm doing.


Yeah I noticed this when I was watching a certain advert about Icelandic vodka (the one with the little puffin that tries to hump her leg) and she says _hættisu_. I hadn't realised before that how much can be left out in pronunciation of a simple Icelandic sentence. (The Icelanders in the comments below had mentioned it's just how ordinary people say "_Hættu þessu_"



> They write "gemmer" instead of gefðu mér


I suppose this is like_* gimmie*_ instead of _*give me*_ (though in English this is occasionally the pronunciation as well)



> _Hlæ_ þú ekki að mér stúlka!


What does this mean? _Stop laughing at me, girl_! ? It turns out _laugh_ comes from Old English _hlæhhan_, so similar (i.e. to _hlæja_)!


----------



## sindridah

Alxmrphi said:


> What does this mean? _Stop laughing at me, girl_! ? It turns out _laugh_ comes from Old English _hlæhhan_, so similar (i.e. to _hlæja_)!



More like "Don't laugh at me girl"

Imperative remember


----------



## Alxmrphi

sindridah said:


> Imperative remember



"Stop...!" is an imperative! (Stop it!)
It's a command (no pronoun).

I see what you mean though, meanings are similar


----------



## kepulauan

It may not be entirely logical but I like to think about some modern conjugations as merged versions of more proper, albeit obscure constructions. 

Everyone omits letters and spacs to some degree, depending on age and influence from peers. Merging happens in the following order, starting with "stýfða" version and the standard form comes second:

_Hætt þú þessu; hættu þessu; hættuðessu; hættisu.
Heyr þú; heyrðu; heyrru._

And not just imperative mood:

_Hvað ert þú að gera; hvað ertu að gera; hvaerta gera; hvadda gera.
Hvað segir þú; hvað segirðu; hvasei'iru; hvaseiru;_

The most merged versions are called "óvandað mál" by íslenskunasistar (wording gets stronger when they are not in a good mood). But who knows... maybe the standard form is no better than the teenage speech. It is only "correct" because it is a literary norm.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> It may not be entirely logical but I like to think about some modern  conjugations as merged versions of more proper, albeit obscure  constructions.


Yeah this sort of thing is common, it is logical looking at language change.
Two examples that immediately come to mind in English are:

_God be with you_ -> _Goodbye_.
_By cause of_ -> _Because_.

It's perfectly normal, and I think the soft g in Icelandic lends itself perfectly to this sort of connected-development (i.e. merging of words together), which is not a bad thing at all, despite what purists say, a perfectly natural healthy language goes through stages like this.

The main Romance languages all have -ment(e) at the end of adverbs, which derives from a separate word '_mente_' which meant '_mind_', which is considered a textbook example of grammaticalisation and shortening of an original noun. (The whole of the Italian future tense is based on completely separate words the used to follow the noun that actually became conjugational endings on the verb; _amar + ho_ -> _amerò_.
There are other examples for French/Spanish/Portuguese that show the exact same thing.



> But who knows... maybe the standard form is no better than the teenage  speech. It is only "correct" because it is a literary norm.


Exactly!
The speech that is defended by the old men in tweed jackets now is the same language their ancestors complained about, they wanted to defend their earlier language, which was described as corrupt and awful by_ their_ ancestors.

What is described as _óvandað mál_, will be what future Icelanders will defend as the "pure standard Icelandic language". It's good to break free of this cursed loop and realise the pattern that is just repeating itself and repeating itself, and realise languages change, nothing special there. Everyone has to adjust to the fact that in a few hundred years your descendants aren't going to be speaking like you.

I think we might be getting a bit philosophical at the moment though


----------



## sindridah

Sæll Pollodia

Gætir þú kannski útskýrt aðeins fyrir mig um hvað þið eruð að tala hvað varðar áframhaldandi þróun tungumálsins væntanlega?

Ég var ekki alveg ná þessum punktum almennilega

Er smá tregur, afsakið


----------



## kepulauan

Ég var bara að varpa fram pælingu minni um að ef það er til „gott mál“ og almennt talmál er verra en það (vont mál), fellur það ritmál sem við lesum í dagblöðum þá ekki í seinni flokkinn af því að að þar eru orð ekki fullkomlega afmörkuð frekar en í vondu máli? úff, löng setning

_„Hvað segirðu“_ er viðurkennt prentform í dag en ég velti því fyrir mér hvort þetta hefði þótt ljót afbökun á _„hvað segir þú_“ fyrr á tímum. Ef til vill voru efristéttarbörn skömmuð fyrir að blanda orðunum saman. Í dag sjáum við áherslumun á þessum tveimur útgáfum en ég er ekki viss um að hundrað ára manneskja væri sammála því.




> The main Romance languages all have -ment(e) at the end of adverbs,  which derives from a separate word '_mente_' which meant '_mind_',  which is considered a textbook example of grammaticalisation and  shortening of an original noun.



In Icelandic, word combinations ending with _konar_, _kyns_ or _staðar_ can be written as either one or two words. Both work in my mind and both are officially allowed. I'd prefer to have someone make that frustrating choise for me to be honest.


----------

