# Icelandic: swapping in clauses



## ShakeyX

Just been reading a paper that I was linked a while back, all about subject gaps and valid word orders etc...

One of the key points I picked up was that switching was not possible if another new subject was resent in the clause. This stays true for most the article except for one puzzling example.

Apologise I am on a blackberry and for some reason they haven't got icelandic support;

Honum maetti standa a sama, hvad sagt vaeri um hann

Makes sense, relative clause, past participle takes the subject gap.

Honum maetti standa a sama, hvad sagt hefdi Hjordis um hann

Invalid as a new subject is introduced: Hjordis, and should take first position.

However this last following one was presented as correct with a new subject in the embedded clause;

Hun benti a baeinn tar sem byrjad hofdu nokkrir tresmidir med engum efnum og ordid heimsfraegir sidad.

I personally would of thought this was invalid, any reasoning why it is aloud?


----------



## Alxmrphi

> I personally would of *have* thought this was invalid, any reasoning why it is aloud *allowed*?


(There are non-native learners of English that look at this forum and it can be very confusing, as you know well, to see natives write incorrect things, so this is for their benefit)

Anyway, the answer to your questions is there is a distinction between _definite_ (with the article/specific) _noun phrases_ and_ indefinite _(without the article/generic/unspecified) _noun phrases_. Notice that if it was _trésmiðirnir_, you couldn't invert the order but if it's _nokkrir trésmiðir_, then you can. That's what the paper says, anyway. There's a difference in whether you're talking about things in general or things specifically referenced.


----------



## ShakeyX

Ah I did read that but I guess as pronouns don't have alternate forms i didn't click. But I guess hann, hún or a name is definite regardless of with the name the definite article is used... which btw, is that ever used? on bin.arnastofnun... names come with definite article versions but I have never seen them used.

Aloud... new low for me.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Ah I did read that but I guess as pronouns don't have alternate forms i didn't click. But I guess hann, hún or a name is definite regardless of with the name the definite article is used... which btw, is that ever used?


Yeah, they're inherently definite so I don't think it'd work to swap in those contexts.


> names come with definite article versions but I have never seen them used.


Do you have an example? I've never seen articles with names.


----------



## ShakeyX

My bad, I realised it isn't actually on that link, but rather on wiktionary 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Hjalti

So the credibility is probably compromised and it's enough to leave it at that 

One additional question if you could help, I found another sentence in my book which struck me as odd sort of linked to this switching.

Again as I've stated before in the grammar book it gives several examples of what it calls PROFORMS and then shows how það can be omitted if another part of the sentence takes its place, in certain situations however not all.

Oft er hlustað á útvarpið (impersonal passive)
I baðkerinu er mús (don't know technical word but here það would have been there)
Rignir mikið í dag? (impersonal dummy subject)

However I would not expect it in the following;

Eigum við að fara í Laxdalshúsið strax á eftir?
Æ já, gerum það, ég ætla endilega að skoða Laxdalshús.
En það er sunnudagur í dag. Er opið sunnudaga?

This doesn't really seem to count as something taking the first position but rather the það just disappearing, which seems odd to me as það would reference Laxdalshúsið.... so it seems odd to just completely leave it out, it's not a dummy subject, it has a purpose to be there, as it's part of the hann/hún/það trio.

(sidenote; why húsið first then hús later? also seems odd with no reason)


----------



## Alxmrphi

I can't tell what's going on in your post. Is that bottom example one, two or three examples? Is it one over two lines and the bottom one is separate?
You'll have to rephrase it so it's clearer.


----------



## ShakeyX

Three examples with brackets were to show examples where það is omitted for when það is either impersonal passive, "there" or dummy. 

The bottom example was one exert, with the rest just for context, but the sentence I am looking at is "er opið sunnudaga?"... I am wondering why the það isn't there giving that það is actually an object and not an abstract concept or linguistic thing... it is the Laxdalshús!


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ah, okay.


> Oft er hlustað á útvarpið (impersonal passive)
> I baðkerinu er mús (don't know technical word but here það would have been there)
> Rignir mikið í dag? (impersonal dummy subject)


All _dummy-það_.


> Eigum við að fara í Laxdalshúsið strax á eftir?
> Æ já, gerum það, ég ætla endilega að skoða Laxdalshús.
> En það er sunnudagur í dag. *Er opið sunnudaga?*


This is unrelated, I think. You just can drop it here because it's obvious what it refers to. Maybe it's a case that because it is _það _it's more likely to be omitted than if it was a different pronoun, I'm not sure. Either way, they are different contexts. I can see why you asked the question.


----------



## ShakeyX

Haha aslong as you can see, do you reckon it would be possible then in the same situation, if it was a male, object that was open.. such as a... wait for it... no I have nothing.

But still given that situation would the response "er opinn" be acceptable?


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Like a veitingastaður instead of Laxdalshúsið for example? I think I would probably still say _opið_ rather than _opinn_, but I could be making an error there.


----------



## ShakeyX

What is perplexing me moreso is whether or not you would omit hann/hun/tad in this situation. Maybe in these short questions is it common. but a seperate type of omition from the above listed rules with other 'tad's


----------



## ShakeyX

For example, if you were talking about a man... Could someone then ask 'er gamall?' Without the hann, as is is how this situation seems to me. Am I wrong?

I was thinking is there a possibility maybe the distinction has been skewed and due to það normally being omitted in these above listed cases that it has become common to omit það even when it is a referential pronoun but not hann or hún? As I do believe er gamall sounds wrong, I would always use hann.. but er opið sounds found, although I guess technically it SHOULD have its referential pronoun, there is no grammatical need to omit it? thoughts?


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

No, you couldn't say "Er gamall?" I have no further thoughts on the matter myself, I'm very much the sort of learner who is happy as long as I understand and see what's right and what's wrong - I personally don't get much out of burrowing into the minutiae. Alex can probably help you, though


----------



## Alxmrphi

Silver_Biscuit said:


> No, you couldn't say "Er gamall?" I have no further thoughts on the matter myself, I'm very much the sort of learner who is happy as long as I understand and see what's right and what's wrong - I personally don't get much out of burrowing into the minutae. Alex can probably help you, though


Drawing a blank, here. 
I don't think it's right but I am not confident to say what the reasoning is. No language has been completely described in all of its nitty gritty, not even English.


----------



## ShakeyX

Yeh it's not a case of it hindering my learning, I ofcourse 100% understand what is meant, just wonder if I was to write it myself, and add the það out of my personal thoughts on being grammatically correct, do you think people would find this odd or praise me for my Icelandic ?


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Ah, just do what feels natural to you and what you hear other people saying most. If it's _wrong_ then people should let you know - those you have primed to correct your Icelandic in any case. You could easily say "Er það opið" instead of "Er opið", just do what you feel  In speech, people do tend to truncate / shorten things as much as they can get away with, so in casual situations, skipping a word where you can do so would be common, I expect. But it makes sense either way.


----------



## ShakeyX

Thanks for the help!

My truncation has took to new heights. As I'm always talking to my partner in Icelandic on skype and such, I am absolutely astonished that she can understand me anymore. In an attempt to not sound like a tourist and use the reykjavik accent more i've tried to talk like they do, literally a long rolling slur, and sometimes Hvað ertu að gera is more like "kvaerðagera". I think to speak like a person from reykjavik it's all about putting as little effort in as possible


----------



## Alxmrphi

ShakeyX said:


> Thanks for the help!
> 
> My truncation has took to new heights. As I'm always talking to my partner in Icelandic on skype and such, I am absolutely astonished that she can understand me anymore. In an attempt to not sound like a tourist and use the reykjavik accent more i've tried to talk like they do, literally a long rolling slur, and sometimes Hvað ertu að gera is more like "kvaerðagera". I think to speak like a person from reykjavik it's all about putting as little effort in as possible


That's the same in many, many places though, _na'a'mean_?


----------



## Gavril

ShakeyX said:


> Apologise I am on a blackberry and for some reason they haven't got icelandic support;



I'm not sure which model of Blackberry you have, but if there's a keyboard on it, try holding down on the "t" key and scrolling to the left or right on the mousepad -- the thorn letters (capital and lowercase) should pop up if you scroll far enough.

You should be able to get "ð" by doing the same thing with "d", and "ö"/"ó"/etc. with the corresponding vowel keys.


----------



## Hjalti

ShakeyX said:


> My bad, I realised it isn't actually on that link, but rather on wiktionary
> 
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Hjalti


An excellent example!


----------



## NoMoreMrIceGuy

ShakeyX said:


> For example, if you were talking about a man... Could someone then ask 'er gamall?' Without the hann, as is is how this situation seems to me. Am I wrong?
> 
> I was thinking is there a possibility maybe the distinction has been skewed and due to það normally being omitted in these above listed cases that it has become common to omit það even when it is a referential pronoun but not hann or hún? As I do believe er gamall sounds wrong, I would always use hann.. but er opið sounds found, although I guess technically it SHOULD have its referential pronoun, there is no grammatical need to omit it? thoughts?



_Er opið/kalt/gaman?_ doesn't have a specific referent. _Er gamall?_ doesn't work without a specific subject.


----------



## ShakeyX

Well I agree with kalt and gaman... but how does opið not have a specific referent, is cold and fun... can be mapped to the situation, the general event... but.. opið, there must be something that is either open or not, an object, a shop. How would you argue that it doesn't have a referent?


----------



## NoMoreMrIceGuy

ShakeyX said:


> Well I agree with kalt and gaman... but how does opið not have a specific referent, is cold and fun... can be mapped to the situation, the general event... but.. opið, there must be something that is either open or not, an object, a shop. How would you argue that it doesn't have a referent?



_Er opið_? works in exactly the same way. (A situation. A general event.)

_Get ég sleppt úlpu?
Já, það er heitt.

Get ég farið um helgina í staðinn?
Já, það er opið._

It's just the way our language works.


----------



## ShakeyX

Just coming back to this I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on the example I gave that used the definite first and then the indefinite.

Eigum við að fara í Laxdalshúsið strax á eftir?
Æ já, gerum það, ég ætla endilega að skoða Laxdalshús.

Why Husid and then later Hus. I've always thought if it had to be anyway around you would normally introduce a new object indefinitely and then to re-refer to it use the definite. In this case we have the definite first... Which as its a name much like England or Irlandshafi, I'm not sure if I'd prefer them both to be indefinite as definitness is implied with it being a proper noun. Any thoughts?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Proper nouns with place names often have articles, like they do in English to. What you say about the old/new information distinction is right, but this is something you can see with, as I said, proper nouns of sort of institutions, places you can visit etc. When you say "Would you like to see the British Museum?" you're also not sticking to this rule of introducing new information with the indefinite article, it's there because it's that type of place where you would put the definite article in English. Same goes for Icelandic in this case. However, it still is _Laxdal's House_, so (no article here) but in an old fashioned sense you could still say _the house of (Eggert) Laxdal_. Being more formal in the beginning to introduce it as a sort of 'visitable' institution and then once that's in context, you refer to it in a way that's more like '_Laxdal's House_' (but still with more of a sense it's a specific place of historical significance, not just a house that belonged to a guy called Laxdal). That's how I see it.


----------

