# Icelandic: any deviations from V2 word order



## Roman A.

Good day!

I have questons about icelandic syntax.
All german languages but english are so called V2-languages, where a finite verb must stand on the second place of a sentence.
It's very interesting for me, if that rule can be broken sometimes in icelandic, for emphasis reasons, til dæmis.

In grammar books it is said that there are so called V3 adverbs in icelandic, which can move a finite verb onto the third place.
These adverbs are: auðvitað, líklega, sennilega, kannski, ennþa, bara, and some others. My question: can any other adverbs or adverbial phrases like "í dag" move the verb to the third place? Can I say, for example?

                                                 Ég aldrei las þessa bókina.  Ég ekki las þessa bókina. Ég, í dag, las þessa bókina.

Or that would be quite unnatural? Can I say "þessa bókina ég las ekki"? 

Can I say "Allir fuglar úr eggi skríða"? 

So, I'm interested in all cases with V3 orders in main clause in icelandic, if any. 
Thank you.


----------



## Rafeind

First off while “þessa bókina” is possible, “þessa bók” is more usual in these sentences. Secondly none of those sentences (Ég aldrei las þessa bókina. Ég ekki las þessa bókina. Ég, í dag, las þessa bókina.) sound right, so no not all adverbs fit in this position (Ég líklega las þessa bók works). "Þessa bókina ég las ekki" also does not work.

On the other hand “Allir fuglar úr eggi skríða” might work in a poem. Not because the verb is in the third position, but because it is last. (“Gamall þulur hjá græði sat”, “og niður í bráðan Breiðafjörð í brúðarörmum sökk”, “Austanbrælu yfir sló“ those are all from poems and none of them have more than one verb in the clause.) In normal conversation it would sound weird.

I think that on the whole you would find more cases where the verb is in first position without it being a question (or a omission) than of the verb being in third position, although this is also more common in poems than normal conversations (i.e. “Fljúga hvítu fiðrildin”).


----------



## Roman A.

Thank you, Rafeind, very much. That helped me. Would you mind several more questions? 

So, "Ég hef séð hana." is normal. But "Ég hef hana séð." is not, and is good only in old sagas or special high style, copying the old one. Is that right?

And a question about participle constructions:
a.) bók rituð af Jóni
b.) bók af Jóni rituð
c.) af Jóni rituð bók
d.) rituð af Jóni bók

All of these variants are correct or not?


----------



## Rafeind

As for your first question, “Ég hef hana séð.” sounds like a line form a poem. Although you also find such sentences in laws: “..., er af megi ráða, að hann vilj íslenskur ríkisborgari vera.” (text on the last page of my passport). In those cases it always seems to me like they are copying the so-called Kanselístýll (just with out Danish loans) and not the sagas although the length of the sentences might have something to do with that. (Kanselístýll is basically Icelandic influenced by Danish influenced by Low German and tends to have long convoluted sentences).

I think variants c. and d. are not correct (although “þessa af Jóni rituðu bók” might be found in a text written in Kanselístýll (which should never be considered good Icelandic by the way)). Variant b. sounds like it might be found in a poem while variant a. sounds normal. “Bók sem Jón skrifaði” would be more common though. On the whole using af to include the doer with a passive is very uncommon in Icelandic. You can say “bókin var skrifuð af Jóni” but if you want to include Jón at all you are much more likely to simply say ”Jón skrifaði bókina”. In the same vain even if is possible to say “hann á bók skrifaða af Jóni” “hann á bók sem Jón skrifaði” is much more common.


----------



## Segorian

Rafeind said:


> As for your first question, “Ég hef hana séð.” sounds like a line form a poem.


It _is_ a line from a poem, namely one of many poems or rhymes called _Grýlukvæði_. The one in question was first printed in the middle of the 19th century, and its ninth stanza (out of a total of 52) reads:

_Eg þekki Grýlu og *eg hef hana séð*;
hún er bæði ófríð og illileg með._​
(According to the poem, Grýla—a giantess used to scare children—has a number of children herself, some of which are called _jólasveinar_, described in the poem as being giants themselves and “dangerous to little children”. Today, the _jólasveinar_ have been turned into Icelandic versions of Santa Claus.)



Rafeind said:


> In those cases it always seems to me like they are copying the so-called Kanselístýll


The manner of writing called _kansellístíll_ (in both name and substance the same as the Danish _kancellistil_) indeed used to be characteristic of official Icelandic texts. Beginning in the late 19th century efforts were made to get rid of its influence, including in legal writing. Nevertheless, it is true that the paragraph from the Act on Icelandic citizenship that contains the line _að hann vilji íslenskur ríkisborgari vera_ is structured in a way that is reminiscent of _kansellístíll_ (keeping in mind that proper _kansellístíll_ was always about writing in a logical manner and without ambiguity). I can’t help but thinking, however, that this particular wording was used to give the passage a more solemn ring than would otherwise have been the case.



Rafeind said:


> On the whole using af to include the doer with a passive is very uncommon in Icelandic.


An important point, which can be illustrated through the following sentence:

_Myndin var tekin af Jóni Sveinssyni við gegningar á Hofi í Vatnsdal._​
The sentence refers to a photograph taken *of* Jón Sveinsson, not by him.


----------



## Roman A.

Thank you for your answers.

*Segorian*
_It is a line from a poem_

I didn't know that, it's just an example. Articles written by icelandic grammatists say that such word order, called OV order (object-verb, when a main verb follows an object) was quite normal in icelandic till the beginning of the 19th century. Since then OV order has suffered a strong decline, and icelandiс has become, in a few decades only, a language withe VO order only possible. Of course, there are some exceptions from this rule but normally only VO order is possible. By the way, german language, on the contrary, is an OV language and we can only say "ich habe sie gesehen" (not "ich habe gesehen sie").

Now I'm reading some icelandic fairy tales (Ævintýri) and OV order happens there sometimes. Examples from the texts:

En sem hann ætlaði að ganga til hallar sér hann konu koma á móti sér forkunnar fríða og þóttist hann aldrei *slíka séð hafa*.
Nú er *frá því að segja* að í öðru landi ríkti kóngur einn
segist hún *ekki annað fé eiga*.
ólmast hún nú enn meir og segist mega *úr hungri deyja *(although in this example "úr hungri" is rather adverbial modifier than object)

I forgot to ask one question. In icelandic there is only one relative pronoun - *sem. *Is it possible (in bookish style or maybe kansellístíll) to use interrogative pronouns as relative ones (like in english, latin or russian)?

Þetta er maðurinn sem María fór með í gær.  
Þetta er maðurinn með hverjum María fór í gær.


----------



## Segorian

Roman A. said:


> Articles written by icelandic grammatists say that such word order, called OV order (object-verb, when a main verb follows an object) was quite normal in icelandic till the beginning of the 19th century. Since then OV order has suffered a strong decline, and icelandiс has become, in a few decades only, a language withe VO order only possible.


Yes, I think this is generally accepted. The reasons why the change happened so quickly are not entirely clear, although it is reasonable to suppose that it was a longer process in the spoken language.



Roman A. said:


> Now I'm reading some icelandic fairy tales (Ævintýri) and OV order happens there sometimes. Examples from the texts:
> 
> En sem hann ætlaði að ganga til hallar sér hann konu koma á móti sér forkunnar fríða og þóttist hann aldrei *slíka séð hafa*.
> Nú er *frá því að segja* að í öðru landi ríkti kóngur einn
> segist hún *ekki annað fé eiga*.
> ólmast hún nú enn meir og segist mega *úr hungri deyja *(although in this example "úr hungri" is rather adverbial modifier than object)


Most Icelandic fairy tales were written down in their current form in the 19th century, but given that they were handed down as an oral tradition from one generation to the next, they probably reflect an earlier style. Of your examples, the first, third and fourth are typical of the narrative style used in Iceland from the 12th and until the early 19th century. You wouldn't see this today except in texts deliberately imitating that older style (but in such contexts it would be seen as perfectly acceptable). Your second example, however, is still a very common way of speaking, and there exist several other expressions of a similar kind, for instance _þess er hér að geta að..._



Roman A. said:


> In icelandic there is only one relative pronoun - *sem.*


In formal (or somewhat elevated) language, one can also use _er_:

_Konurnar *er* taka þátt í sýningunni eru:_ (Morgunblaðið, 27 April 2000, promotional section, p. 12)​


Roman A. said:


> Is it possible (in bookish style or maybe kansellístíll) to use interrogative pronouns as relative ones (like in english, latin or russian)?
> 
> Þetta er maðurinn sem María fór með í gær.
> Þetta er maðurinn með hverjum María fór í gær.


Yes, this was used in official documents employing _kansellístíll_ and in some other texts. Extremely rare today but not totally unknown.

_Að því er snertir úrskurð hjeraðsdómarans, sem kveðinn var upp 5. júnímán., *með hverjum* hann synjaði gagnáfrýjanda um lenging á fresti þeim, sem hann hafði veitt honum með úrskurði frá 29. maímán., þá hefur gagnáfrýjandi tekið það fram, að..._ (Appellate Court judgment No 28/1879)​


----------



## Roman A.

Thank you, Segorian. Only asking native speakers helps to better understand things about the language. 
Although this thread is about syntax, I have a couple of questions about other things.

First - diminutives in icelandic. I know, suffixes -l- and -ling- added to a stem form diminutives from nouns. For example:
     mús - mýsla/mýslingur,  ormur - yrmlingur/yrmla, önd - endlingur, blað - bleðill, köttur - kettlingur

The question is if this way of forming diminutives is still productive in modern language? Do many words form diminutives or only few? 
Can we form diminutives freely? Сan we say, for example, fisklingur (from fiskur) or synlingur (from sonur) or hyndla (from hundur) or eygill (from auga)? Are there other ways to form diminutives, maybe other suffixes?

The second question is about consonant clusters hl- hr- hn-. Is the initial h- pronounced in these clusters after all or not? [l̥], [r̥], [n̥] or [hl̥], [hr̥], [hn̥]?


----------



## Segorian

Roman A. said:


> The question is if this way of forming diminutives is still productive in modern language? Do many words form diminutives or only few?


It is productive at least to some extent. _Disklingur_ is from the 1970s (although it is a word that was probably coined by a committee and has already been made obsolete by technological advances). _Jepplingur_ is from the 1990s and is in fairly common use (_jeppill_ was also tried). The suffix _-ill_ is used fairly often to create new words, but these are only rarely diminutives. _Hreyfill_ is from the early 20th century and means ‘motor’. _Fíkill_ was coined in the 1970s as a word for ‘addict’ and gained rapid acceptance. _Kyndill_ came into use spontaneously a few years ago as a word for ‘ebook reader’ (after the Kindle, and using the same spelling as the word for ‘torch’ although a more logical way of spelling it would have been _kindill_).



Roman A. said:


> Do many words form diminutives or only few?
> Can we form diminutives freely?


Many words do form diminutives, but I'm not sure that diminutives can be formed freely. It's clear that words created with _-lingur_ are often accepted fairly readily, but _synlingur_ for instance sounds very strange. Of the other words you mention, both _fisklingur_ and _hyndla_ exist (the former is recent, I believe, and, while rare, probably strikes most people as a normal word; the latter is old and hardly in use today). If I saw the word _eygill_, I would expect it to have been coined as a specialist term, and I would have to take a wild guess as to its meaning.



Roman A. said:


> Are there other ways to form diminutives, maybe other suffixes?


Prefixes can be used. Hundreds of words have been formed with _smá-_: _smábátur_, _smámenni_, _smámunir_, _smásmygli_, _smáþarmar_, etc., etc. A few diminutives in _í-_ and _ei-_ exist, including _íbjúgur_ (‘slightly curved’) and _eilítill_ (‘very small’). Also, _ör-_ is used as an intensifier denoting smallness: _örmjór_ means ‘very thin’ and _örsnauður_ means ‘very poor’.



Roman A. said:


> The second question is about consonant clusters hl- hr- hn-. Is the initial h- pronounced in these clusters after all or not? [l̥], [r̥], [n̥] or [hl̥], [hr̥], [hn̥]?


It's the former: [l̥], [r̥] and [n̥].


----------



## Roman A.

Segorian said:


> It's the former: [l̥], [r̥] and [n̥].


This pronunciation occurs throughout the whole country or dialectically it can vary? 
I'm asking because I have seen the both transcriptions in textbooks and dictionaries, among them those of icelandic authors.



Segorian said:


> Many words do form diminutives, but I'm not sure that diminutives can be formed freely. It's clear that words created with _-lingur_ are often accepted fairly readily, but _synlingur_ for instance sounds very strange. Of the other words you mention, both _fisklingur_ and _hyndla_ exist (the former is recent, I believe, and, while rare, probably strikes most people as a normal word; the latter is old and hardly in use today). If I saw the word _eygill_, I would expect it to have been coined as a specialist term, and I would have to take a wild guess as to its meaning.


Thank you. I'm drawing a conclusion that forming diminutives with suffix -ling- is productive enough in the modern language.


----------



## Roman A.

Segorian said:


> _Jepplingur_



What does it mean, by the way?)


----------



## Segorian

Roman A. said:


> This pronunciation occurs throughout the whole country or dialectically it can vary?
> I'm asking because I have seen the both transcriptions in textbooks and dictionaries, among them those of icelandic authors.


It is possible that there is some dialectal variation, but I haven't noticed it with these sounds. I don't think  ever precedes [l̥], [r̥] or [n̥]. However, the unvoiced sound (this is true for [l̥] and [n̥] at least) is sometimes briefly followed by the corresponding voiced sound before the vowel is reached (my feeling is that this primarily occurs either incidentally or idiosyncratically), and that is why the notations [hl] and [hn] are sometimes used. On the other hand, I don't think I have ever seen [hl̥], [hr̥] or [hn̥]. In these, the  seems entirely redundant.



Roman A. said:


> Thank you. I'm drawing a conclusion that forming diminutives with suffix -ling- is productive enough in the modern language.


That would be my conclusion, too.



Roman A. said:


> What does it mean, by the way?)


_Jepplingur_ is a small _jeppi_. The latter word was originally used for the four-wheel-drive vehicle called Jeep and later as a generic term for the kind of car now known as SUV. Although modern SUVs are often quite large, there also exist so-called ‘mid-size’ and ‘compact’ SUVs, and _jepplingur_ is used for the latter category.


----------



## Roman A.

Segorian, reading the icelandic wikipedia, I have found such a sentence in an article dedicated to "Fimbulvetur":

_*Í Snorra Eddu, Ragnarök er* þessum vetri lýst svona: ,,Hár segir: ,,Mikil tíðindi eru þaðan að segja mörg. Þau hin fyrstu að vetur sá kemur er kallaður Fimbulbvetur. Þá drífur snær úr öllum áttum. Frost eru þá mikil og vindar hvassir. Ekki nýtur sólar. Þeir fara þrír saman og ekki sumar á milli. En áður ganga svo aðrir þrír vetur að þá er um alla veröld orustur miklar. "_

This sentence begins with an adverbial, after which there goes a subject, and a finite verb comes third. Is it a normal sentence since the finite verb is not on the second position or is it just a mistake of the writer of the article? What do you think about that?


----------



## Þórir Pétur

Roman A. said:


> This sentence begins with an adverbial, after which there goes a subject, and a finite verb comes third. Is it a normal sentence since the finite verb is not on the second position or is it just a mistake of the writer of the article? What do you think about that?



You are in fact wrong there. Two things you must keep in mind:
1. Ragnarök is a plural noun, so it would use the conjugation "eru" if subject
2. The sentence uses the passive form of "describe" to mean "something is described". The icelandic verb "lýsa" takes dative, so the passive "e-u er lýst" takes a dative subject

Keeping these things in mind (and knowing that an adverbial is usually not followed by a comma like this) you can see that the sentence has the passive "þessum vetri er lýst" in the order "er þessum vetri lýst" according to v2, and that you can just you can ignore the ", Ragnarök" part.

What that ", Ragnarök" means is a bit hard to say, as even for an Icelander it looks strange and out of place, but it seems that the author meant "Í Snorra Eddu, Ragnarök" to be read as "in Snorra Edda, in the Ragnarök part / when talking about Ragnarök".


Hope that helps. I know I'm not Segorian, but I decided to answer anyways .
Wish you a great day


----------



## Roman A.

Thank you, Þórir, you really helped. Yes, I now understand, Ragnarök in this sentence is just a name of a chapter of Snorra Edda.


----------



## Segorian

Roman A. said:


> Ragnarök in this sentence is just a name of a chapter of Snorra Edda.


Correct. The words “Snorra Edda Ragnarök” are being used as a title. It is worth pointing out that there are at least five errors in the quoted text (_Mikil tíðindi eru þaðan að segja _*og*_ mörg. ... er kallaður *er* Fimbulbvetur_ ... _Þeir *vetur* fara þrír saman og ekki sumar á milli_).


----------



## Roman A.

Good evening. I have a question about word order. Which of two following sentences is correct? 

1.) Kysst hefur hann hana ekki, bara haldið í höndina á henni.
2.) Kysst hana hefur hann ekki, bara haldið í höndina á henni.

Thank you.


----------



## Segorian

Roman A. said:


> Good evening. I have a question about word order. Which of two following sentences is correct?
> 
> 1.) Kysst hefur hann hana ekki, bara haldið í höndina á henni.
> 2.) Kysst hana hefur hann ekki, bara haldið í höndina á henni.



Considering that word order in Icelandic is flexible to a certain extent, both sentences can be said to be acceptable, strictly speaking. In practice, however, I think that an Icelander would be very unlikely to ever use 2.), and 1.) would only be used while emphasizing the first word:

_*Kysst* hefur hann hana ekki, bara haldið í höndina á henni._

In the spoken language at least, nearly everyone would say _Hann hefur ekki kysst hana, bara haldið í höndina á henni_, emphasizing “kysst” as needed, but the above sentence is possible with the indicated emphasis.


----------



## Roman A.

Thanks, Segorian, I thought myself that both sentences are not ungrammatical though not common. Are you Icelander, by the way, or Swede, living in Iceland?


----------



## Roman A.

Hi, Segorian.

I have found this sentence in the Net:
_Ég, *hafandi lesið bókina*, horfði á myndina með vini mínum sem hafði ekki lesið bókina og hann var ekki alveg viss um hvað hefði gerst í myndinni. _

Is this sentence really correct? I'm asking because I don't know exactly whether a native icelandic speaker wrote this or not.


----------



## Rafeind

It is correct. It is not a common to use present particles like this in Icelandic, but it isn’t wrong. It does sound a little bit like a too literal translation from German, but it isn’t wrong in Icelandic, just a bit unusual. I think it is also a type of sentence you would be more likely to see written, than hear spoken.


----------



## Roman A.

Thank you. At first I thought that the participle construction was occupying the second place in the sentence, but now I understand that it is just an attribute to the pronoun "ég", so it should be correct.


----------



## Segorian

Roman A. said:


> Thanks, Segorian, I thought myself that both sentences are not ungrammatical though not common. Are you Icelander, by the way, or Swede, living in Iceland?


Responding to this question first, since I seem to have missed it when it was posed, I was born in Iceland but grew up largely in Sweden. Now living in Iceland.


----------



## Roman A.

Segorian said:


> Responding to this question first, since I seem to have missed it when it was posed, I was born in Iceland but grew up largely in Sweden. Now living in Iceland.


Yes, Segorian, I know that, thank you.


----------



## Segorian

Roman A. said:


> Hi, Segorian.
> 
> I have found this sentence in the Net:
> _Ég, *hafandi lesið bókina*, horfði á myndina með vini mínum sem hafði ekki lesið bókina og hann var ekki alveg viss um hvað hefði gerst í myndinni. _
> 
> Is this sentence really correct? I'm asking because I don't know exactly whether a native icelandic speaker wrote this or not.


Constructions like _hafandi lesið_ are generally considered correct, but they are frowned upon by some people given that—like Rafeind points out—they are practically never used in the spoken language. However, I imagine that inserting a phrase like this immediately after the subject that starts the sentence would be marked wrong by many teachers. I don't think I have ever seen that before.

Unlike Rafeind, I don't see how this construction in Icelandic could be a German influence. Those who have written about it mostly attribute it to the influence of English.


----------



## Rafeind

You are of course right, if this construct is used in Icelandic that is most likely due to influence from English. There is just something about this sentence which makes mind jump so straight to the German ‘habend das Buch gelesen’ that I didn’t even think of ‘having read the book’ even if I was writing in English. I have been around too much German and too little English to make the more common conections it seems.


----------



## Segorian

Rafeind said:


> There is just something about this sentence which makes mind jump so straight to the German ‘habend das Buch gelesen’ that I didn’t even think of ‘having read the book’ even if I was writing in English.


German is not my strongest language, but I would have thought that _habend das Buch gelesen_ is not idiomatic, something which seems to be confirmed by this thread.


----------



## winenous

Segorian said:


> German is not my strongest language, but I would have thought that _habend das Buch gelesen_ is not idiomatic, something which seems to be confirmed by this thread.


To me, the equivalent does not sound great in English either. There are a couple of reasons why not, but as it is tangential to the thread I'll not go into details unless specifically asked.


----------



## Segorian

winenous said:


> To me, the equivalent does not sound great in English either. There are a couple of reasons why not, but as it is tangential to the thread I'll not go into details unless specifically asked.


Please elaborate. Is “having read the book“ not a sacrosanct phrase?


----------



## Rafeind

Segorian said:


> German is not my strongest language, but I would have thought that _habend das Buch gelesen_ is not idiomatic, something which seems to be confirmed by this thread.



You are right. There is just something about using a present particles to make a whole sentence into an adjective which reminds me of German. That is common there, it is just ‘ge_(something)_ habend’ which is not. And (probably because of the ending) my mind just connects Icelandic present particles more easily to German present particles than English present particles.

Which is to say, you are right, there isn’t actually a good reason why this sentence reminds me of German rather than English. But somehow it just does.


----------



## winenous

Segorian said:


> Please elaborate. Is “having read the book“ not a sacrosanct phrase?


OK, here are my reasons while it is "not great", even if it is not exactly wrong:

1) In English, it seems a little odd to put the phrase into the sentence immediately after the subject, as it is in the Icelandic.

2) By itself, the phrase normally gives a reason or explanation for what follows. "After having read the book" is different: it merely indicates the temporal relationship between the parts of the sentence. I am aware that there is an implied explanation in the Icelandic sentence, but even so to me it doesn't sound quite right in translation.

More normal usage would be something like "Having read the book, I no longer kept it open on my desk".

I am not going to argue either point strongly, but for what it is worth that is what I meant.


----------



## Segorian

Rafeind said:


> Which is to say, you are right, there isn’t actually a good reason why this sentence reminds me of German rather than English. But somehow it just does.


I understand now. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Segorian

winenous said:


> OK, here are my reasons while it is "not great", even if it is not exactly wrong:
> 
> 1) In English, it seems a little odd to put the phrase into the sentence immediately after the subject, as it is in the Icelandic.
> 
> 2) By itself, the phrase normally gives a reason or explanation for what follows. "After having read the book" is different: it merely indicates the temporal relationship between the parts of the sentence. I am aware that there is an implied explanation in the Icelandic sentence, but even so to me it doesn't sound quite right in translation.
> 
> More normal usage would be something like "Having read the book, I no longer kept it open on my desk".
> 
> I am not going to argue either point strongly, but for what it is worth that is what I meant.


Thank you. I misunderstood you: I thought you were saying there was something wrong with the phrase “having read the book” as such.


----------



## Rafeind

I think winenous first point might in fact be part of what about this sentence reads more German than English to me, having present particle phrases right after the subject instead of at the start of the sentence is more common in German (even if phrases with ‘ge_(something)_ habend’ are not).


----------



## DrJacoby

Hi everyone,
After reading this thread, I was wondering when you actually use the present participle form (-andi) in Icelandic, other than:

1) as a noun ("ég er nemandi", "hann var þolandi ofbeldis", etc) or
2) as an adjective ("hún er sofandi", "á fastandi maga", "komandi ár", etc)

I'm quite fluent in Icelandic, but I feel like I hardly ever come across this form in, let's say, a construction similar to the English gerund ("having said that", "after reading this thread" ...). Would it ever be used this way (in newspapers or literature or the like)?


----------



## Segorian

DrJacoby said:


> I'm quite fluent in Icelandic, but I feel like I hardly ever come across this form in, let's say, a construction similar to the English gerund ("having said that", "after reading this thread" ...). Would it ever be used this way (in newspapers or literature or the like)?


The construction exists, but is very rare and most people avoid it. A newspaper search for the period 2010 to 2019 revealed 55 examples of _hafandi sagt það/þetta_, over 30 of which were by the same journalist. Extending the search to the past 50 years I found only three examples of a similar construction with _gerandi_, the most recent one being:




 _[Fréttatíminn, 26 November 2016]_

In this particular case, the choice of a word form was no doubt influenced by the two preceding “present participles“, both of which are, however, adjectives.


----------



## DrJacoby

Thanks!
Then it seems to be pretty much like in German, where those forms exist for all verbs but are used fairly seldom.


----------

