# Icelandic: Sterk/Veik beyging



## ShakeyX

*Vissir þú... *að með *PlayStation 4-leikjatölvunni verður hægt að deila leikjum á Internetinu og spila streymda leiki?


*This is from the Icelandic wikipedia homepage. "Did you know that (with?) Playstation 4 (gaming computer/console???) (will posible?) to share games on the internet and play streamed games.

Apart from the question marks which I would appreciate someone ironing out... What are the factors that cause streymda to be used (which is classed as a Veik Beyging) rather than streymdan (the singular, male, accusative case in the Sterk beyging)

What causes the shift between strong and weak.

Thanks, Jake


----------



## Alxmrphi

Hi ShakeyX 

First, the sentence: _Did you know that with the PlayStation 4 (games console) it will be possible to share games on the internet and play streamed games?
_Now the grammar: This used to confuse me a lot when you had plural masculine nouns that have_ -i_ instead of_ -a_ in the accusative plural.

In 'streymda' here, you're talking about an adjective derived from a verb. So, here it's strong/weak declensions of adjectives derived from verbs. You have "*spila leiki*" (_play games_) so if you want to put an adjective in there, it has to be in the accusative (because 'spila' governs the accusative case) and it has to be plural (because_ leiki_ is masculine plural accusative).

Take a look at the declension for 'streyma' here. Go down to where it says *Lýsingarháttur þátíðar* and look at those tables. Now that you now you need the plural, so it's the table to the right. It's a masculine word so pick the first column and it's accusative, which in Icelandic is _Þolfall_ (Þf.). I think it's just a case of you looking at the singular here (which would be 'streymdan') when you need to be looking at the plural. The plural accusative of masculine nouns always ends in -a (even if the corresponding masculine noun does not). Actually I see what you mean now, by calling it weak. Yes, it's true that some forms represent multiple functions, but rather than looking at the singular weak, you need to look at the strong plural (specifically: accusative). That's the form that's being used here.

_Games console _(i.e. games computer) = leikja+tölva.
Not sure if you were confused by that but adding it in anyway. You got the right translation.



> What causes the shift between strong and weak.


I don't know if you meant 'in this case' (which isn't a case of any change here - all strong declension) or if you meant more generally. If you meant more generally, then it's a case of whether there is the definite article attached to the noun (or it's been 'defined' in another way, like with a possessive or something).


----------



## Gavril

Alxmrphi said:


> "What causes the shift between strong and weak."
> 
> I don't know if you meant 'in this case' (which isn't a case of any change here - all strong declension) or if you meant more generally. If you meant more generally, then it's a case of whether there is the definite article attached to the noun (or it's been 'defined' in another way, like with a possessive or something).



Aren't there cases where a definite article is attached to a noun, but the adjective remains in the strong form? (E.g., _hávaxinn maðurinn _"the tall man", where _hávaxinn _is the strong nom. sg. form.)

We discussed this here a while back, and if I recall correctly, the weak form of the adjective can only (technically) be used when you're contrasting two or more things designated by the same noun: _hávaxni maðurinn_ would thus mean "the tall man" as contrasted with (e.g.) a short man present in the same context. On the other hand, _hávaxinn maðurinn_ would simply mean "the tall man (who was mentioned earlier)".

However, I also remember someone saying that this "rule" is not always followed in everyday speech.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Well, yes.

I didn't want to cause an information overload, though. 
Learn the rule, then the exceptions come later on. I would have given up if I had all that information at the start when still getting my head around automatically changing adjectives depending on the article, with my mind freezing while I imagine tables and selecting mental boxes trying to get the right declensional form.

I don't think the 'tall man' example works, really. You can use the strong form of adjectives  when there is only one thing that can be referred to or if talking about a general noun that's hard to divide into pieces (i.e. concepts of 'sea'/'ocean' and 'snow') and then the strong adjective means that the noun is in a temporary state (i.e. a specific colour or something). It is said that the weak adjective is used when you can have other people/things that can be referred to, but it's not as general to be (readily) allowed in examples like that. You reference a man who is tall in a story, there are still other men in the whole overall situation (there must be) so I don't think it's anything common to do given that men can't readily enter into states of being tall and then not being. But still. This is really detailed and quite complex and don't want to overload the OP.


----------



## Gavril

Alxmrphi said:


> This is really detailed and quite complex and don't want to overload the OP.



OK, I'll start a new thread to continue the discussion.


----------



## ShakeyX

Okay just to confirm, I accidentally used the singular ... don't know why, no logical reason. So what I meant to do was use the past participle, plural, accusative, MALE (as leikur is male) form.

So I have the choice now which is what I am struggling with. Do I use... Streymda (strong), or Streymdu (weak).

What is it affecting this decision, is it the noun it's attached to? Sorry I'm finding it hard to understand still. Maybe some examples with the same sentence with a replaced noun (if it is indeed the noun that alters the strong/weak choice).

Thanks, Jake


----------



## Alxmrphi

> What is it affecting this decision, is it the noun it's attached to? Sorry I'm finding it hard to understand still. Maybe some examples with the same sentence with a replaced noun (if it is indeed the noun that alters the strong/weak choice).



This is the rule: If there is a definite article attached to the noun  (or words for 'this/that' before it), use the weak declension. If there is no definite article (i.e. talking about things in general) then you use the strong form.

So it'd be... '*spila streymdu leikina*' (play _*the *_streamed games) and '*spila streymnda leiki*' (play streamed games).

Hvítu skyrturnar eru í fataskápnum (*The* white shirts are in the wardrobe) - maybe specifically meaning 'the ones I ironed yesterday' or something.
Hvítar skyrtur líta vel út (White shirts look nice)

When you restrict what you're talking about to be a specific thing you're referring to (by using 'the' or 'those/these') then you use the weak declension. When you're talking in general and don't mean a specific instance of something, then the strong declension is used. If you want to talk about_ *the *animals in the park _= weak declension, but if you want to talk about animals in general, strong declension.

Does that help? Try and write 2-3 examples of your own to see if you've got the hang of it.


----------



## ShakeyX

Yeh that helps. Completely opposite from what I would imagine. It seems STRONG would pair with DEFINITE and WEAK with INDEFINITE but... oh well.

Thanks for the help


----------



## ShakeyX

Okay exert from wikipedia page.

Á stöku stað er landið kallað...

"In an isolated part is the (land???) called..."

Stað is using the indefinite... actually I really don't get this one at all. Staður is male, yet nowhere in either weak or strong is the word stöku in the male section.

What's up with that.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Stað is using the indefinite... actually I really don't get this one at all. Staður is male, yet nowhere in either weak or strong is the word stöku in the male section.


I can easily see how that can be confusing. Sometimes things are just fossilised expressions and then they take on more idiomatic/metaphoric meanings (and are often syntactically different). Consider "_to and fro_" in English. Nobody says '_fro_' anymore and it's a fossilisation from when people used *fro* which was imported from the Vikings and once a common preposition before being dropped. This is an example of it in Icelandic where the meaning is more 'in some areas/places' or even 'occasionally' (i.e. in some places). In a report or a thesis you can see things like  _Á stöku stað verður stíllinn svolítið bóklegur _(In some places [occasionally] the style will be a little bookish). 

So, once you consider it as its own sort of idiomatic phrase and memorise it as such, there's no need to analyse it as individual items which, as you correctly see, don't follow the usual rules.


----------



## ShakeyX

I just realized my mistake with my translation aswell now. I guess if the phrase "Á stöku stað" is acting as an adverb then it has that weird (Verb/Subject switch)

So I guess it should be.. In some places the country is called. I originally thought it meant there was a particular place, CALLED something else.

Oh Icelandic you foul beast.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Oh Icelandic you foul beast.





> I guess if the phrase "Á stöku stað" is acting as an adverb then it has that weird (Verb/Subject switch)


Not necessarily as an adverb, you could have anything similar in that position and it'd be the same.

[Í húsi föður míns] er þetta kallað..
(In my father's house this is called...)

It's a prepositional phrase being put at the front (just like in the á stöku stað example).
So originally (or in a more normal word order) it is: Landið er kallað [X] á stöku stað.
Then shifted: Á stöku stað er landið kallað [X].

Clear?


----------



## ShakeyX

So very clear!  Nah I gotcha! Sincerely thanks for all the help.


----------



## ShakeyX

One last query to seal the deal.

Kórea var eitt ríki til ársins 1948 þegar landinu var skipt í Kóreustríðinu...

Korea was one state until the year 1948 when the country (unsure why this is in the dative?) was separated in the Korean War.

So other than the question in brackets, what form is SKIPT in? I thought if VERA was used as an auxiliary then the past participle (which bends to gender and case) is used. Could I get the exact form which this is in.

Thanks


----------



## Alxmrphi

Wow, you're battling through all the tricky points at once, I see. I hope it isn't too much of a complicated explanation.
First of all, to clear up some terminology: _benda _= decline/conjugate (when talking about grammar).

When _vera_ is an auxiliary and you have a past participle, it only agrees with things in the_ nominative case_.
Now, passives are transformed from active sentences. Now, when you have a verb that gives its object a case that_*isn't *accusative_, then when you make the passive, it doesn't transform like you would expect. The 'new' subject keeps the same case, and there is no agreement with 'vera' and the past participle. Now, when I say there is no agreement, what I mean is there is 'default agreement' which means singular neuter. So, the verb '*skipta*' in this case gives its object the dative case, so when it's made into a passive, the original object of the verb keeps that case (X split the country -> The country was split (by X)). 

Now, when you ACTUALLY have a singular noun in the neuter then it shows the same case form. So here, even if this rule wasn't the case, the form would be the same.

To give another example, one verb that takes accusative and one that takes the dative:

Ég málaði myndina - I painted the picture
Ég *breytti* þeim- I changed them

>> 

Myndin var máluð - The picture was painted (agreement)
Þeim var *breytt*- They were changed (no agreement; note plural subject but singular verb)

So, that's where the dative comes from. If you look at the declensional paradigm for skipta then you'll see "skipt" is the neuter singular.


----------



## NoMoreMrIceGuy

Alxmrphi said:


> Ég braut þeim- I broke them
> 
> >>
> 
> Þeim var brotið - They were broken (no agreement; note plural subject but singular verb)



Wait, what?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Gah, I meant to use breyta and not brjóta.
Editing now...

Thanks for catching!
I had just been reading how _breyta _was derived from _brjóta_ and then must have mixed them up when doing the example.


----------



## ShakeyX

Rather than make a new thread... just add more concerns to this hot pot as it relates to the strong/weak thing.

Article, wikipedia, states;

Nes er vinsælasta leikjatölva síns tíma

NES is most popular games console of it's time.

My question, why not LeikjatölvaN... THE most popular. Doesn't seem to make any sense without this, and would this then change the adjective from weak to strong/strong to weak?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Alxmrphi said:


> Hi ShakeyX
> 
> [..]
> 
> I don't know if you meant 'in this case' (which isn't a case of any change here - all strong declension) or if you meant more generally. If you meant more generally, then it's a case of whether there is the definite article attached to the noun (or it's been 'defined' in another way, like with a possessive or something).



It's this. The possessive 'defines' it as being unique (which the definite article does) and that gives rise to it being specific/specified and therefore needs the weak declension.


----------



## ShakeyX

Okay I get that the sins has caused it to be specific, forcing weak declension. However I am still confused as to why the definite isn't used... Tölvan mín, Tövlan þín.... Tölva síns??? AF HVERJU?


----------



## Alxmrphi

That, is a good question. In all my years of reading about Icelandic I haven't found a satisfactory answer to explain why a hugely significant amount of possessive phrases don't have the article, when it's widely written about as being a rule. It's there sometimes, and then it's not. I tend to put it in and only in some situations omit it, but I think it's just a personal tendency to do it when I know I've seen/heard other people use that exact same thing without the article.

If you stick to the rule though, and just understand that quite frequently you'll see structures without it, it shouldn't be too much of a bother. I'll post back if I find anything but it's something I've thought about for a long time, too.


----------

