# Icelandic: er ekki mikið fyrir <> að sjá



## Alxmrphi

Halló,

I tried to pick a random article and work my way through picking out random words to try and translate and I was just stuck on the very first sentence of this article.

I can only take a wild guess at this.
The full sentence is about the Parliament House (Althing), "Alþingishúsið er ekki mikið fyrir hús að sjá". Does it mean that "_The Parliament House is nothing special to look at._" ?

I know there would be varying comments about how to translate Alþingishúsið but I'm not interested in that at the moment. I just want to know if I have understood the meaning. 
I know I should probably wait for a confirmation first but I am wondering if it is correct, then would the following sentences be correct:
*
H**ún er ekki mikið fyrir *(stelpu)* að sjá*......................................................... (She's nothing special to look at / There's nothing amazing about her looks)
*Þú getur komið að heimsækja mig en hérna er ekki mikið fyrir *(bæ) *að gera*. (You can come visit me but there's nothing interesting / special to do here / in my town)
*Söngvarnir hennar eru ekki mikið fyrir* (söng)* að hlusta á*. ...................................(Her songs are nothing special to listen to)

I'm curious if you have to repeat the item after *fyrir* or not, or if it's ok to leave it out.

Takk you very much .


----------



## Tjahzi

Ahh, how interesting. I'll try a very long shot here.

"Alþingishúsið er ekki mikið fyrir hús að sjá" gives us...

Althing-house-DEF. is not much for house-INDEF. to see.

So, in Swedish we have this similar construction, which only differs in preposition, a pattern that I've found to be very common between Icelandic and Swedish. Translated to "morphologic English", it would go like this:

Althing-house-DEF. is not much (of house-INDEF.) to see. - With the part withing parentheses being more or less optional (I assume it used to be mandatory but has fallen out of use).

Now, this Swedish construction would mean that the Althing building is not a very spectacular or "see-worthy" one. That is, it's design is rather dull, bordering to ugly.

As such, your assumption would be correct.


Regarding your other questions, I can only add that it would sound very odd to use such a construction in Swedish, but then again, Icelandic is much more conservative and while the very expression is outdated here, it could be standard in Icelandic (though my guess is they don't use it with "animate objects").


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ah interesting, what you say about it being possible in Icelandic could very well be true, given that something like verb movement to pre-negation started to be lost in 1400 in Swedish and was completely gone in 1700 (I had a read over something earlier today that reminded me of the dates ) while it's ungrammatical Icelandic to not do this, so very possible.

I hadn't thought about inanimate / animate objects, but I'm glad I included it so I won't overgeneralise if it's the case that you only use it with inanimate objects. Yeah the translations for the meaning can be done in a good few ways in English if this is the correct meaning, but the 'nothing special' / plain / normal is what I was asking about.

I see in Swedish the part in brackets could be left out, I just left out the noun but you indicated if there's no noun, there's no preposition. I didn't think about that possibility.

I can't wait to get a native's insight!


----------



## kepulauan

It means that this house isn't very grand as such; it's not much of a house, for a house. Not awe-inspiring compared to its status, just like any other house in the area.



> I'm curious if you have to repeat the item  after *fyrir* or not, or if it's ok to leave it out.


Doesn't need to be a repetition of something: "þetta svokallaða heimili er ekki mikið fyrir hús að sjá".


----------



## Alxmrphi

pollodia said:


> Doesn't need to be a repetition of something: "þetta svokallaða heimili er ekki mikið fyrir hús að sjá".



Thanks!
I had wondered about the repetition, but that just leaves me with two questions D)

1) Is it ok to leave out the second word? If so, does fyrir stay or not?
2) Are my attempts to use it horribly horribly wrong?

I mean, even if I understood the basic idea and with a bit of rewording they would sound okay, that's what I'll be happy with, I just wanted to know if that construction was an okay general idea to translate from English to Icelandic.

Thank you thank you!


----------



## kepulauan

Tjahzi said:


> Regarding your other questions, I can only add  that it would sound very odd to use such a construction in Swedish, but  then again, Icelandic is much more conservative and while the very  expression is outdated here, it could be standard in Icelandic (though  my guess is they don't use it with "animate objects").



Wel this isn't exactly hip here either. I don't know if the other  examples are valid. How did you come up with the "...bæ að gera" Alex?



> Is it ok to leave out the second word? If so, does fyrir stay or not


Eehm, it sounds okay, if _fyrir_ stays that is.


----------



## Alxmrphi

pollodia said:


> Wel this isn't exactly hip here either. I don't know if the other  examples are valid. How did you come up with the "...bæ að gera" Alex?
> 
> 
> Eehm, it sounds okay, if _fyrir_ stays that is.



Oh god, I have no idea.
I think I left out, then thought I had to put something in, then couldn't decide what it was, so tried to change it and didn't read over it. I see how it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Okay, so it's not too popular in Iceland.
Is it something you'd say pollodia? If not I can mentally classify it as one of those things to know (for when I come across it) but not actively use, otherwise I will probably try to use it and sound like an old Icelandic man or something 

(I use old fashioned Italian expressions all the time and the Italians laugh at me, lol , so I'm determined to alter my learning process with Icelandic so the same thing doesn't happen)


----------



## kepulauan

I would just say "ekki mikið á að líta" or something, but be aware of possible multible meanings:
(literally) "The parliament is not much to look at" - it's not spectacular? / it's small? / it can be toured quickly? it's ugly?
"The specifications are not much to look at" - they are a waste of paper? / the don't take long to browse through?

"ekki tilkomumikið" is another option, simple and understood by everyone.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Right'o, thanks for the warning.

So a group of Icelandic tourists walking around Berlin might see an ugly building, and the tour guide is going on and on and on about it, and they don't really think it looks like anything special. They might say:

Þess*i *bygging er ekki mikið á að líta.
Þess*i *bygging er ekki mikið fyrir að líta / sjá. (although less popular in Iceland today)
 
?

Ah, I didn't see your edit, good idea!
I knew that word!


----------



## Tjahzi

Well, in order to understand this issue, I think it's important to make the following distinctions regarding your example sentences (literally translated back to English (_to see/do _etc translated to _see-worthy, do-worthy _etc) in order to determine whether the preposition, in this case _fyrir_ (do note that I've used _for/of_ here, partly because Swedish has _of_ and partly because I believe that will make the most sense to you), should/could be left out.

1. The Althing house is not much of/for a house {to see -> see-worthy}.
2. She is not much of/for {to see -> see-worthy}.
3. Here is not much of/for {to do -> do-worthy}.
4. Song her is not much of/for {to listen to -> listen-worthy}.

These sentences could be categorized depending on their syntactic structure. If we start out with the first, it could be summed up as: 
NP(Det.-N-N)-VP(V-Adv.-Adv.)-PP(P-NP(Det.-N-Adj.)). Whereas the second would be:
NP(Pron)-VP(V-Adv.-Adv.)-(PP(P-Adj.).

Obviously, this can't be done since a PP always demands an N(P).

Similarly, the third goes :
AP(Adv.)-VP(V-Adv.-Adv.)-PP(P-Adv.), also, the fourth is essentially the same as well:
NP(N-Det.)-VP(V-Adv.-Adv.)-PP(P-Adj).

To sum up, if you want to create this kind of sentences with a prepositional phrase, you need a noun. A shack can be _not much of a house_, a footballer _not much of a team player, _Sindri _not much of a rule freak_ and so on.

Hence, in order to making your other sentences functional using this formula, you need to add a noun.

2. She is not much of/for [a person/girl] {to see -> see-worthy}.
3. Here is not much of/for [things] {to do -> do-worthy}.
4. Song her is not much of/for [a song] {to listen to -> listen-worthy}.

However, (*warning*, this does apply to Swedish (and to some extent English), but I have no idea about Icelandic (then again, the syntax tends to add up...)) one can also remove the preposition which will cause the verb to cease functioning as an adjective being hooked up on the PP (since there is no PP anymore) and instead come to be the main verb (and _to be_ becomes a modal verb) of the VP.

1. The Althing house is not much to see.
2. She is not much to see.
3. Here is not much to do.
4. Song her is not much to listen to.

The new sentences get the following structure:
NP-VP(MV-Adv.-Adv.-V).

(Swedish uses both the first and this one quite often.)

It could be the case that this was just one big detour to reach a simple conclusion, but considering how different your example sentences were, I found it more or less necessary (at least not negative) to outline it like this.
Also, I didn't make trees for a couple of years, so I do in no way pretend them to be flawless. 
And on top of that, this is basically just one big assumption based upon previous observations indicating syntactic similarities between Swedish and Icelandic.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I am a bit of a syntax freak as well, and I know you said you haven't made trees in a long time but syntax is a lot more modern than PSRs (phrase structure rules). What you have said is all logical to an extent (a bit of a detour indeed to arrive at a point).

But pollodia said it sounds okay to leave out the noun, only if the preposition _*fyrir*_ stays.
Which you ruled out by saying:


> Obviously, this can't be done since a PP always demands an N(P).


Which isn't true in modern syntax, the only necessary element is the one in the higher phrase level (i.e. a P is needed, everything else optional). Just like an NP is an NP because it has to contain an N, and other options are possible too.

But an interesting analysis I have to admit!
When I think of it, I picture it as "Not much of a house for looking at", which seems quite possible, and English has a picky habit of requiring the -ing form of verbs after prepositions (which is not present in most / any of the related languages English shares its history with) so I find it possible to think it could be normal to leave it in and use an infinitive.


----------



## Spirillist

Alxmrphi said:


> English has a picky habit of requiring the -ing form of verbs after prepositions (which is not present in most / any of the related languages English shares its history with)


Presumably because "to" is used both as the infinitive marker and as a preposition, so putting the verb in the infinitive would sound like two different prepositions right after each other.


----------



## Tjahzi

Well, truth to be told, I'm _not_ a fan of syntax (I'm a phonology freak ). As such, I do in no way doubt that the Government and Binding-theory is out dated. I just, as more or less the only system at hand, used it to deductively reach an answer to your example sentences. (I realize it sounds like I might be defending myself, so I'd like to stress that I took no offense.) 

That said, just to be clear, by "N(P)" I meant a "N" or "NP" (which obviously is a silly way to write it considering the obvious incoherency with the rest of my post). 
Also, I do not question it, but I'd still like to know how it can be (that is, what the arguments are for) that a PP does not demand a N or NP.
Since we are dealing with languages as analytic as English, Swedish and Icelandic (obviously in falling order in terms of analyticness), I felt free to "translate" the verb _að sjá _to the adjective _see-worthy_, since that's what it _means_, from a pragmaticpoint of view. As such, I also considered that an adjective (despite the fact that it, semantically _denotes_ a verb) when making those trees. However, I'm not sure if this is acceptable according to any theory. (Do you?)
Also, I must admit I'm 100% sure I follow your and pollodia's discussion. What did you mean with _the item before fyrir_? The word within parentheses? And, in what contexts are _fyrir_ necessary? Also, in a phrase such as _"Þessibygging er ekki mikið á að líta" _ isn't the verb _að líta__á_? If so, obviously the preposition is part of the verb (and hence, technically, an adverb)? Also, then there would be no PP. Again, I don't know, I'm just asking.

Furthermore, whether one chooses _for looking at _or _to see_ shouldn't matter, since neither of these do_ syntactically _indicate the aspect of being particularly worth looking at. (One could say this is due to the very fact that these are not adjectives or nouns but verbs, but with an optative (for instance) mood, that could be done). As such, I believe you somehow need to "convert" them if you wish to use them in such an analysis (assuming we may "convert" words (and assuming that the theory that you dismissed and I refused to defend is correct (lol))).


Oh well, on top of that I have an additional question that I forgot to include when I wrote my last post. 
Could you please elaborate on this. It sounds very interesting but I'm not sure I follow.




> Ah interesting, what you say about it being possible in Icelandic could very well be true, given that something like verb movement to pre-negation started to be lost in 1400 in Swedish and was completely gone in 1700 (I had a read over something earlier today that reminded me of the dates ) while it's ungrammatical Icelandic to not do this, so very possible.


And, in case it wasn't completely clear, this was the very thesis of my last post.




> I see in Swedish the part in brackets could be left out, I just left out the noun but you indicated if there's no noun, there's no preposition.


----------

