# Icelandic: In Austarland there aren't many things to do....



## Alxmrphi

*In Austarland there aren’t many things to do if you don’t like glaciers or walking.*
*Í Austurlandi það eru ekki margt að gera ef þér líkar ekki jökla eða að ganga/labba.*

I just had a few questions based on this sentence (I’m not saying it’s true!!)

1) In English and other languages there is an impersonal ‘you’ (English = one, Italian = si) etc, I haven’t come across learning one for Icelandic, do you just use the *Þú / Þið* form or is there an impersonal way that I should use?

2) For the verb ‘to walk’ I know two translations, I am not sure which is more common and which one fits this context here *að labba / að ganga*.

3) Last year I remember learning that words like ‘things’ aren’t translated, but rather, a certain word is put in the neuter, so for example this is the phrase I memorised *það er margt athyglisvert að sjá í miðbænum*. _(There are many interesting things to see in the city centre_) but there is no translation of ‘things’, but rather *margur* (many) is put into the neuter along with the word for ‘interesting’ and that’s how it would be translated.
So I was wondering if I got the right idea by using “*margt*” to mean ‘many things’ in my attempt at a translation.

J ?


----------



## 'Islendingur

(It is not quite true)

*'A Austurlandi er ekki margt að gera ef þér líkar ekki við jökla eða (fjall)göngur.*

*Austurland býður ekki uppá margt til afþreyingar ef þér líkar ekki jöklar eða (fjall)göngur.*

The first one is the closest in wording. Second one says "afþreying" because the   second half of the sentence implies you are not talking business. (afþreying is things you do to wind down from every day stuff..or work)

1. Yes.  Maður (one) gæti haldið....... (could think).

2. They are very, very close. Hopefully someone can explain better. But "ganga" or "göngur" fits much better here. (again, in my opinion...absolutely open for discussion)

3. I believe you got it right here.

Good timing Alex!
Thor.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Halló Þor

The second one looks so complicated, how come it's jöklar in the second but jökla in the first, I thought they both needed *þolfall* here... maybe it's nust nominative after *að líka*.

Thanks for the note about *ganga/göngur*, it's what I needed.
So I am using "*þú*" for impersonal '*you'* here? Or does *maður *also work here?

I'll research all the words till I understand both sentences! 
Thanks for your quick response!

Takk kærlega fyrir mig!


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Alex_Murphy said:


> ... how come it's jöklar in the second but jökla in the first, I thought they both needed *þolfall* here... maybe it's nust nominative after *að líka*.


I thought it was odd too, but the phrases differ in that one contains við, too, so maybe this has something to do with it. 



'Islendingur said:


> *'A Austurlandi er ekki margt að gera ef þér líkar ekki við jökla eða (fjall)göngur.*
> 
> *Austurland býður ekki uppá margt til afþreyingar ef þér líkar ekki jöklar eða (fjall)göngur.*



/Wilma


----------



## 'Islendingur

The case (fallið) is controlled differently in the second sentence. (different nominator?)  Also, that sentence has a more formal flair to it.  But it could end exactly the same as the first one. 

Also, I´d like to point out that if you say "'I Austurlandi.....", Austurland would have to be a country. (England, Þýskaland and so on.) ex. 'I Þýskalandi aka menn mjög hratt" ( In Germany they drive very fast).  And here is another example of an impersonal  use of "menn", which usually means "men", but here it is "all men", or "they"  (Another quirk here, "aka menn mjög" refers to both genders here!)

The use of "þér" here is impersonal. It is like the rednecks here saying "y'all", but of course it is not a redneck slang, lol.

So, I wonder what kinda worms will crawl out of this......LOL.

(Translation, for those who have a hard time putting a smile on

Skyldi þetta nú allt vera rétt hjá mér ??


----------



## Alxmrphi

Regarding the case, I thought that as it's "if you don't like glaciers" where "glaciers" is the direct object then jökla would be used... could it be nominative (jöklar) because it's a "quirky subject verb" i.e. *mér líkar*, instead of, let's say *ég bý*.. this would require *nefnifall*?

Whether the við was there or not, I thought it still would need to be accusative plural, because of við but even if that wasn't there, because of it's function, but I suppose with this different type of verb, it isn't used in the normal way?

So Thor, if it has to be a country, what should I change it to to mean the part of the country.. should I use *á Austarlandi*... or *í/á landshluta sem er kallaður *_(kallaðan?)_* Austarland*?



> 'I Þýskalandi* aka* menn mjög hratt"



*Cries* why can't there just be ONE word for each concept! 
I have another question now... what's the difference between *að aka* og *að keyra*? 



> Skyldi þetta nú allt vera rétt hjá mér ??


Having a hangover, trying to read Icelandic doesn't really make the headache better, what does this part mean?


----------



## 'Islendingur

You could keep the "*við*" in the second sentence, and then it would be exactly the same. So, that word does affect the outcome. (Sorry, but it has been 23 years now since my last course in grammar, and these technical details just are not popping up. But this is interesting, and that is why I am giving you different options for the same translation

Never say* í* for landshluta. Always *á*. But you say "í Vík, or í Reykjavík, or í (mið)bænum, or í Strandasýslu, or í Hrunamannahreppi and so on, but never "á Reykjavík...
Also, " 'I landshluta sem er kallaður austurland" can also be " 'I landshluta sem kallaður er austurland."  Do not use capitals for austurland, vesturland and so on. You would use capitals when writing "Vestur Húnavatnssýsla or Austur Húnavatnssýsla". Because we are actually using NAMES now, not a general part of the country. 

Well, what can I say. Live and learn. There is no difference in the meaning of the words. There is a slight differnece in the usage when used with another word. As in "*Ökumaður*" or "*Ökuþór*".  These cannot be "Keyramaður" or "keyraþór". (Do not exist, look ugly, don´t ever show or use these).

And the last sentence. A good example of how different the line up of words can be.
So lets first do it word by word: " *Wonder this now all be right with me*"  and what I´m saying is: " *Wonder if I got all this right*"

Happy hangover (*þynnka, timburmenn*), I like the "*aðdragandi*" much better ! (And now Im wondering if you have a good word for "aðdragandi" in english, don´t think you do. But it means "*leading up to"*.

Þór.


----------



## 'Islendingur

Well, I was looking at aka/keyra a little better, and here is my gut feeling on this: Að keyra is the whole car moving, i.e. the big picture of the act.  Að aka is what the person is doing.  I may be wrong, but it seems to fit. But still, the words have the same meaning..for the most part. Hope I make sense, and I by all means correct me if I´m wrong. (anyone ??).

Þór.


----------



## Alxmrphi

'Islendingur said:


> Well, I was looking at aka/keyra a little better, and here is my gut feeling on this: Að keyra is the whole car moving, i.e. the big picture of the act.  Að aka is what the person is doing.  I may be wrong, but it seems to fit. But still, the words have the same meaning..for the most part. Hope I make sense, and I by all means correct me if I´m wrong. (anyone ??).
> 
> Þór.



And that'd explain why you can only have ökumaður then! Because it wouldn't make sense when referring to the whole car moving..
So am I right in assuming you'd use að aka with geta?

_*He can drive*_ - *Hann getur akið*

Or is *Hann getur keyrið* also ok?
Thanks for the rest of the help with the* í / á *thing, big help!


----------



## 'Islendingur

He can drive is *Hann getur ekið,* the other would work fine also, *Hann getur keyrt*.   However....we can twist this a little more at the risk of getting quite complicated. The first one would be used here: He is *able* to drive, the other would be: He *can* take you. And then they could both mean "*He can drive*"
Phew....

Þór.


----------



## Alxmrphi

On the other point I found some things on google, that seem to suggest the quirky subject verbs don't need normal expected accusatives

Examples from google.

_Mér vantar_ peningar
_mér vantar_ upplýsingar
_mér vantar_ myndir

But.. _Mér vantar_ *góðan* Striker fyrir Liverpool, that's an accusative, uhh I don't know.


----------



## Alxmrphi

By chance I've just been reading one of my books and it mentioned mig vantar and specifically said it is followed by the accusative case....... so the 'quirky subject' verbs seem to still require the accusative.....

But the examples in the last post I've noticed are all plural, maybe for the plural there is a rule that you use the nominative, or maybe that's how they're being used..

That rule would explain the þér líkar ekki jöklar thing and also with við when it's separated from the verb, it'd then be normal and require accusative...

I've got a feeling I'm probably wrong though.


----------



## 'Islendingur

_



Mér vantar peningar
mér vantar upplýsingar
mér vantar myndir
		
Click to expand...

 
This is called þágufallssýki. Something many do (say), but it should be *MIG vantar..*
_


----------



## Alxmrphi

Hi Þór, I tried to do a search on the net for more information on _þágufallssýki, _but none of it was in English, could you explain it again please, does this mean the verbs like líkar / vantar / langar etc that use mig/þig and so on, or something else?

[Edit]
Ah, I found some stuff:

In Modern Icelandic there's a frowned-upon tendency
(called 'þágufallssýki' "dative sickness") to use the dative with some
verbs that traditionally took an accusative subject. Especially where
there are synonyms or near synonyms that do traditionally have a
dative subject. Maybe the dative is favoured because it's the more
common oblique subject.

Ahh I totally understand what you mean now, the using of the dative for these verbs is what _*þágufallssýki*_ is! 

Er okei að segja það þegar þú talar saman við vini en er ekki okei þegar þú verð skrifa það.
(Sorry that's going to be a terrible attempt, but it's practice anyway)

Note: more info (for anyone who reads this in the future)


----------



## 'Islendingur

http://www.fsu.is/vefir/gisli/malnotkun/thagufall.html

Look at this page, not very long at all - but yes, it is in Icelandic. Note on the bottom of the page there is a link that says "Smelltu hér" til að leysa verkefni, means, click here to solve an assignment.  Maybe give that a try after some reading.
 I have not tried it, but the page seems to be very much to the point!

Þór


----------



## Alxmrphi

Will do!

I noticed something else on a search.. on this page.. a comment is left that says:

"*hey!
we are taught at Háskoli Íslands that lang and vanta NEED dative….*"

It's interesting isn't it !


----------



## 'Islendingur

It is *NOT okey *(or accepted) under any circumstaces to use this form of expression. You will hear it wide and far, and most people are caught doing it every now and then, but it is wrong.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Okay (you seem like I've offended you! )
I'll use the accusative form from now on


----------



## 'Islendingur

Oh, no. I guess I was just trying to come across in no uncertain terms. That's all!!

Þór.


----------



## Alxmrphi

'Islendingur said:


> Oh, no. I guess I was just trying to come across in no uncertain terms. That's all!!
> 
> Þór.



Ahh okei, þakka þú fyrir útskýringu*na*!


----------

