# Old Norse: The impossible we do overnight



## edwardtheconfessor

Hi
Anyone out there can help me?
OLD NORSE - anyone speak/write these?

'The impossilbe we do overnight; miracles take a bit longer'

('we' means 'you and I'. 'overnight' can be literal or a figure of speech. 'take a bit longer' = need a bit more time and effort.
'miracle' (as in Anglo-Saxon 'wunder').
It's a business slogan.

Thank you so much - will say that in OLD NORSE


----------



## Alxmrphi

Hi edward, it's really good to see someone else who is interested in all this linguistic history! It's only been a few months since I really started getting into and understanding all the linguistic and historal pasts of... well everything...

But my pedantic side has to (sorry!) point out a few things (that I think are important for other readers)...

Old Norse is not an ancestor of modern English.
When Germanic split up, it split into North, West and East Germanic.
From East Germanic we had Gothic (now extinct) and then we had North and West.

The general term for "North Germanic" at this point is "Old Norse (Scandinavian)" - alongside all the other West Germanic languages (that split into High / Low German / Anglo-Frisian).

English is part of the Anglo-Frisian branch of West Germanic, and Old Norse is generally considered the collective term for the North Germanic languages (before they then do an East / West split) so it's important to consider it as a 'Brother / Sister' language rather than an ancestor, they both have the same source, but developed on different parallels)

As for the case endings, yeah I am totally with you there. But the problem is, it wasn't really a case (from what I've seen / heard / read) a stumbling block to speakers of these languages. In fact, the languages were similar, but it was the inflectional endings to the roots of the words that different, so removing the endings made the words near-identical..

Basically for example, Old Norse had its nominative singular ending in -r-, and for nominative singular in Old English there was no ending, so chopping off the -r- meant a word was mutually intelligable.

I imagine it to be easy for them, I am learning Icelandic and I am familiar with a bit of vocabulary, and when I listened to an audiobook with a hefty chapter on Gothic, the narrater read a lot of words from Gothic that I understood *instantly*, from its similarity from Icelandic (I wouldn't say I speak Icelandic well _at all_) but I managed to understand even with gothics -s- endings for its nominative declensions. The point being, everything I know about this period said that the speakers had no problems at all understanding each other, it was only a case of common endings being different at the end of words and human interaction in the Danelaw (English & Danish) led to gradual elimination of inflectional endings.

I really wish I could help you with your translation, hopefully in a few years when I am much more knowledgeable - I really didn't mean to be pedantic here but I just love talking about this sort of thing, I'm sure you understand


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

Well, alxmrphi, I bow to your superior knowledge in all this and am most grateful for the instruction.  About near synonyms which have passed into common English usgae, such as 'sick' (Anlgo-Saxon origin) and 'ill' (Old Norse origin) or 'craft' (Anlgo-Saxon origin) and 'skill' (Old Norse origin) and probably plenty others of that ilk (also an Old Norse word by origin?) - would make a fascinating study all by itself. Have you ever read "The Story of English" (BBC publication, circa 1999 - don't know the authors I'm afraid - but from the BBC2 televison (UK) repeat broadcast of that year). That was  the first real fillip for me to what was already a serious interest.

What you say about Gothic interests me to the core! I have also a downloaded course in Gothic which I also started studying but, as ever, too little vocabulary to help me with this translation - for, as it happens, (yes, you guessed it!) I'm also looking for a Gothic translation! -  thought it best, though,  to work on getting an Old Norse one first (having now a  satisfactory (I believe) Anglo-Saxon one).  I will email to you privately in response to yours about all this.  Icelandic translation I also have and also Faorese (which is remarkably similar).  you are keeping this thread vibrant - which is great - and I am sure that there must be serious enthusiasts out there who can come to my rescue (!)

IF IT HELPS I can post my Anglo-Saxon, Icelandic and Faroese translations on this thread - in case it helps anyone who is fluent in such modern Scandinavian langauges and may have a passing knowledge of old Anglo-Saxon, such that, if we put a few heads together on this .......  

Cheers    - edwardtheconfessor


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

edwardtheconfessor said:


> Still no takers??? Still looking for translation ... anyone???????


 
OKAY:
Here's my own best efforts (is THIS enough leads for someone to help me?)???

(Modern) English: 'The impossible we do overnight; miracles take a bit longer'

ICELANDIC

The ómöguleger við gera yfir nótt; kraftaverk taka a hluti lang lífi.

FAROESE:

Tað ómøguliga gera vit eftir einum clegi; undurverk taka heldur longri tið.

ANGLO-SAXON (circa 7th-8th centuries):

Þa unmeaht elican fremma þ wé ofer nihte; wundru behófaþ hweæ ðere lengra hwíle.

(This translation obtained from an online expert who, unfortunately, had no Old Norse knowledge!)

(Modern) NORWEGIAN:

det rimulige vi gjør natta over; mirakel føre det enda lengrie.

*Well, OLD NORSE ?????*:

{ Inn verk (*værk[/B)]) vandr (vandær) [WE] *kunna* gera/gøra/gerva/gørva (g(j)æra/g(j)øra)   [BEFORE] snimma/snemma - morginn/morgunn;   [MIRACLES  .... cf ICELANDIC krataverk, FAROESE undurverk, ANGLO-SAXON wundru, (MODERN) NORWEGIAN mirakel (SEE ABOVE) ]    
[*hafa (=have)/yöfr (gørr(=made/done) *         *vilja (=want) *  ... (cf ANGLO-SAXON behófaþ, ICELANDIC/FAROESE taka, NORWEGIAN føre  ]
lítt (=little (adverb)) fleiri (fleri)/magr  (=more)      timi.  }

To 'de-gobbeldygook' this a bit, it's trying to say:-

{"   The (Inn)   work/deed (verk/værk)   difficult (vandr/vandær)    WE (?) can (kunna ??)   make/do (gera/gøra/gerva/gørva/g(j)æra/g(j)ora)    BEFORE (?) early - (snimma/snemma)     morning (morginn/morgunn)   ;

MIRACLES (?) (compare 'kraftaverk'(Icelandic)/'undurverk'(Faroese)/'wundru'(Anglo-Saxon)/mirakel(Norwegian)  )
(to)have   (hafa/yöfr/ ?)    /made/done     (gørr ?)
want (?)      (vilja ?)  (compare 'behófaþ'(Anglo-Saxon)/taka(Icelandic/Faroese)/føre(Norwegian))
(a) little     (lítt ?) more     (fleiri/fleri/magr)  time      (timi)  " }


KEY: (If this helps!!)

{the whole sentence (when properly translated!)}
[CAPS] = English word for which I have no translation equivalent (and need one!)
* ....... *  [* ........ *]   Denotes grammatical construction or verb for which I have no guides as to: conjugation or to use of auxilliary verb(s) or similar, as to indicate person, tense construction or participle construction.
(whole word) = OLD Swedish equivalent.
(letter) = sometimes omitted
word/word/word ....     = alternatives, apparently equally in use.


NB: (Modern) English pronoun 'we' [WE]: means the 1st and 2nd person inclusive i.e. : 'you and I' OR 'you and I together', rather than 'I and another (or others)' . I understannd that such a grammatical distinction IS (WAS) possible in Old Norse.


NOW .... can anyone (at all!) advise me further if I'm getting anywhere at all, and help me walk that extra step to a proper (presentable!) translation - which has been oh so elusive thus far????
I've done about as much spade work myself on this one (working mainly from an online dictionary, and with the help of one or two online (language exchange) translators) as I am possibly able!

Regards         -    edwardtheconfessor*


----------



## sindridah

In my opinion you should throw those language exchange translator in the garbage because it's completely wrong and doesn't make any sense. I can translate Old Norse into English but i cannot translate English into Old Norse. I can translate this into Icelandic if that does any help.


----------



## Frenchlover1

The correct Norwegian sentence is: 
"Det umulige gjør vi over natta; mirakler tar litt lenger tid."

I love that you are so crazy about old norse! Excitement like yours makes me so happy! Just continue to explore more and more about languages and things you love, you get so much joy out of that It is one of the best things in life, isn't it, to have a passion about something and have the possibility to do that which you love?

Very, very good look to you and your life! Continue to be unstoppable! (Can one say that in English?)

Have a wonderful summer!

(And last: please correct my English mistakes; I am just as crazy about languages as you, you see(A))


----------



## Frenchlover1

I found this english - old norse dictionary. Have you tried it? 

I also want to say that as a Norwegian I doubt that there are any "the" in Old Norse because there aren't any in Norwegian (but I can always be wrong of course) Instead of saying _the chair_, as you would have said in English, we say _stolen_. In other words, the article is _after_ the main word, and not before

_The_ love
Kjærlighet_en_ (m)

_The_ girl
Jent_a_ (f)
(Feminine nouns can either have a feminine or masculine ending. Jent_en_ is just as right as jent_a_. (But that was not the point indeed with this post))

_The_ house
Hus_et_ (i)


----------



## Alxmrphi

> *NB*: (Modern) English pronoun 'we' [WE]: means the 1st and 2nd  person inclusive i.e. : 'you and I' OR 'you and I together', rather than  'I and another (or others)' . I understannd that such a grammatical  distinction IS (WAS) possible in Old Norse.


Ah, the _inclusive/exclusive 'we'_ forms.
I know this is common in some of languages of the Far East (and others) but I didn't know Old Norse had it.

Old Norse did make a bit of a distinction between the forms that have been passed down to Modern Icelandic but not a distinction between inclusive/exclusive _WE_.

In the modern language, *við* / *þið* are like "we (all)" and "you (plural)", but back in ON, these were dual forms, so:

*Við*(vit) meant You and I (only).
*Þið*(Þit) meant You two.

So they broadened to take over from the original multiple plurals *vér *(we pl) and *þér* (you pl). They were conjugated like:

*Þér *- nominative ........................ (You pl)
*Yðr* - accusative........................ (You pl)
*Yðr *- dative.........................((to) You pl)
*Yðar* - genitive...........................(Your pl)

&

*Vér *- nom ..................................... (We pl)
*Oss** - acc......................................(Us pl)
*Oss** - dat................................((to) Us pl)
*Vor*(vár) - gen................................(Our pl)
(*notice the relationship between English "*us*" and Old Norse "*oss*"  ?)

So, the dual forms widened to cover these two other distinctions, so the only distinction (that I know of) in the difference between Old Norse's pronoun system is at one point you had a *dual-we *and a *dual-you*, alongside *plural-we *(+2 people) and* plural-you *(+2 people), which has since been lost (or reserved for honorific purposes my book says).

But as for "I and you" and "I and somebody else", marking of the plural, I've not heard of that in Old Norse, where did you read it? Is it possible what you read was referring to the older forms I mentioned?


----------



## mugibil

I can't believe there are so many mostly irrelevant answers, and not a single one that directly answers the question, and mine is not going to be much better - like the others, I have some idea of Old Norse, but no active command of it. My first recommendation would be to ask for an Icelandic translation; Old Norse would be likely to be pretty much the same as the Icelandic, just changing a few sounds or function words. I'd expect most final 'ð's in function words to be replaced with 't's: thus, we'd have vit and þat instead of við and það. As Alxmrphi pointed out, "we" would be vér if you mean more than two persons; vit is just the dual form (for two persons), unlike Modern Icelandic, where it has been generalized as a plural form. Some of the 'e's and 'æ's are replaced with 'ø's and 'oe's; all 'ö's are replaced with 'ǫ's.

My own (incompetent) attempt:

It ómǫgulega gørum vér "???eina nótt???"; kraftaverk taka "???nokkut???" lengri hríð.

Again, while the sounds should certainly be like this and not as in modern Icelandic, the actual phrases, especially for "overnight" and "a little longer" should be crosschecked with Icelandic speakers.


----------



## Ben Jamin

edwardtheconfessor said:


> *NB: (Modern) English pronoun 'we' [WE]: means the 1st and 2nd person inclusive i.e. : 'you and I' OR 'you and I together', rather than 'I and another (or others)' . *


*

Does it? If so, then most English speaking people use it wrong and the dictionaries are wrong too.

Here is a definition from the Reference dictionary:
We: pronoun used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together or regarded as in the same category.:

And here from the Merriam Webster online:
Definition of we: I and the rest of a group that includes me : you and I : you and I and another or others : I and another or others not including you —used as pronoun of the first person plural — compare I, our, ours, us*


----------

