# Icelandic: IP-V2 Word Order



## kemocon

Icelandic is one of the languages which implement the IP-V2 Word Order Rule, that is, Icelandic requires the verb to always be the second semantic block in the clause, be it main or subordinate, unlike, for instance, Swedish, in which only verbs in main clauses must come second, or Modern English, in which the verb usually doesn't have to come second at all.

The question is: which of the sentences below sound(s) correct?

I)   _Geturðu sagt mér hvar *er* spítala?_
II)  _Geturðu sagt mér hvar spítala *er*?_
III) Both, but there is a subtle difference in meaning or usage.
IV) Both, and they both mean the same thing and are used in the same situations.
V)  Neither.

If the second is grammatically correct, then how to justify that without breaking the rule above?

Thanks.


----------



## kepulauan

Only option II is correct (although the noun cannot be unspecific) unless the second clause is somehow broken away from the first.

I don't know anything about IP-V2 but does it apply in a clause with no object in it? Also, there is a fundamental difference in how _hvar_ functions in I and II.

I. _Geturðu sagt mér _*|*_ hvar er spítala?_ (hvar is an interrogative)
II. _Geturðu sagt mér *hvar* spítala er?_ (hvar is some sort of a connector between the two or maybe a part of the first)


----------



## kemocon

Yes, it does apply even if there is no object. The only exception Wikipedia lists is questions formed by inversion. Here is the V2 Rule article over there as well.

So, would you say the following translations are accurate enough:
I. Can you tell me "where is the hospital?" (i.e. can you ask me that question?)
II. Can you tell me where the hospital is? (i.e. can you inform me regarding its location.)

Thanks.


----------



## Magb

Let me add that that Wikipedia article in my opinion really confuses the issue by conflating V2 word order with preferred adverbial placement. II is the correct word order in the Scandinavian languages as well, and what pollodia said about the clause being "broken away" applies to them also. The difference they're referring to is that in Icelandic you would quite naturally say "He said that yesterday was he sick" (with V2 movement), while in the Scandinavian languages you normally say "He said that he was sick yesterday". But the difference here isn't really in how V2 works, it's in where the languages prefer to but the adverbial "yesterday". If you _do_ put the "yesterday" at the front of the dependent clause in Scandinavian, which is awkward but not entirely ungrammatical, the verb moves just like in Icelandic. And in the case of interrogative pronouns, they _do_ go at the front of the clause, so those clauses behave identically to the ones in Icelandic. (Edit: Got my wires crossed a bit there. The point here is of course that the interrogative pronouns _don't_ trigger V2, but I stand by my assertion that the difference between Icelandic and Swedish is one of preferred adverbial placement, not of V2 _per se_. Although perhaps V2 preferences ultimately do have something to do with the difference.)


----------



## Alxmrphi

> I stand by my assertion that the difference between Icelandic and Swedish is one of preferred adverbial placement, not of V2 _per se_


There is a large literature on the syntax between Icelandic and mainland Scandinavian in this respect. Icelandic is IP-V2 while Swedish is CP-V2, it is to do with a difference in V2 implementation. Syntactically the V2 slot in IP-V2 languages is SpecIP while in CP-V2 it's SpecCP, resulting in the notation that Icelandic has V2 in subordinate clauses (because the constituents move to a different position to the complementiser), while in mainland Scandinavian in any subordinate clause, it's filled by the complementiser and therefore V2 in subordinate clauses is blocked.

However, as pointed out by Thráinsson and who do this sort of syntactic analysis of Scandinavian languages, it doesn't hold for all the data, it's a rule-of-thumb in general, articles are always being published trying to explain the rest of the data. The interesting information is looking in Old English, and seeing how Viking invasions had an effect on V2 in Old English, changing it from CP-V2 to IP-V2 in the north of the country, that is, when Scandinavian had IP-V2 (like Old Norse) before it switched to CP-V2. Regarding these examples in Icelandic, I think the use of hvar is definitely complicating the issue, with full nominal expressions the rules apply more rigidly, or so they say in the journals that talk about this rule. When you get to connectors / pronouns this is where it gets a bit hazy and the exceptions start coming in.



> or Modern English, in which the verb usually doesn't have to come second at all.


You can still see it in main clauses beginning in _never_. (_Never* have* I seen such a beautiful house.._)
I remember reading some other ones but none that I can remember off the top of my head.


----------



## Magb

Alxmrphi said:


> There is a large literature on the syntax between Icelandic and mainland Scandinavian in this respect. Icelandic is IP-V2 while Swedish is CP-V2, it is to do with a difference in V2 implementation. Syntactically the V2 slot in IP-V2 languages is SpecIP while in CP-V2 it's SpecCP, resulting in the notation that Icelandic has V2 in subordinate clauses (because the constituents move to a different position to the complementiser), while in mainland Scandinavian in any subordinate clause, it's filled by the complementiser and therefore V2 in subordinate clauses is blocked.



That seems like a good explanation. I don't aim to dispute the well-established research in the field. My point was merely that if an adverbial _is_ fronted in a subordinate clause in Swedish, then the verb _does_ move in front of the subject, just like in a main clause; it's just that such adverbial fronting is rare in subordinate clauses. I'll stop the off-topic chatter now.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Magb said:


> That seems like a good explanation. I don't aim to dispute the well-established research in the field. My point was merely that if an adverbial _is_ fronted in a subordinate clause in Swedish, then the verb _does_ move in front of the subject, just like in a main clause; it's just that such adverbial fronting is rare in subordinate clauses. I'll stop the off-topic chatter now.



No no, it's all very relevant, and I'm always happy to hear different views. Usually the things I read are all to do with the people who support analyses of this theory in such a way. It's nice to get information that might cast doubt and then the idea can be critically analysed better.

It's not really reflected in the information available on Wikipedia either but such an across the board generalisation is a very old idea (at least 20 years). No syntactician believes this is a good way to correctly identify the way V2 works in main/subordinate clauses in these languages.

What's more believed is like what you say, variability, things are preferred in certain languages that have certain consequences for word order, depending on the type of word being fronted. But there is a question that I do have. In mainland Scandinavian, in a _that_-clause, if you have an a) adverb and b) nominal expression fronted, does the verb precede negation or not? And does it invert?

For example:

He said that [*the book *read he not.]
He said that [*the book *he read not.]
He said that[*the book* read not he.]
He said that [*the book* he not read.]

What would be correct in Scandinavian?
I'm not sure about Icelandic but I think it would be: _Hann sagði að bókina las hann ekki_. But I always manage to make assumptions and then get corrected about them so I'm not saying this is correct! This would correspond to the first one. Would a language like Swedish be more like the 2nd or 4th example?


----------



## Magb

I would say option 1, "He said that the book read he not" (in Norwegian: "Han sa at boka leste han ikke"). Option 3 is also possible, but that would imply an emphasis on _he_ (which has to get backed rather than fronted for emphasis because there's already a fronted element). 2 and 4 are ungrammatical for me, and I think for all Scandinavians. I should also stress that this kind of fronting/backing is much less common in subordinate clauses than it is in main clauses.

By the way, I think your Icelandic sentence should be something like _Hann sagði að bókina læsi hann ekki_, assuming that that is indeed the correct word order in Icelandic.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Tjahzi said:


> Please don't.


Agreed 
Sindri, can you check my Icelandic sentence above please? We're not sure if it should be *las* or *læs*.


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Regarding that specific sentence, I'm sure you don't use the subjunctive after *að segja *just as a matter of course, like you do after *að halda* (when used to mean *to think*). I also think it's an unusual construction to put the object before the subject like that. 'Hann sagði að hann las ekki bókina' would be much more common.
As you have it it really emphasises the book like 'He said he didn't read the _book_.' Implying that he did read something else.

Sindri: Don't quit because you don't understand all this technical linguistics. Neither do I.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> I's an unusual construction to put the object before the subject like  that. 'Hann sagði að hann las ekki bókina' would be much more common.


Yeah, it's used only to illustrate that a switch happens in word order. It's not intended to be a fairly normal-sounding sentence in any language. We perhaps should have mentioned that earlier. It'd be for emphasis mostly.

I also didn't think you'd use the subjunctive, so you think* las* is the correct form SB?
What threw me was the definite not-doing of something in the past, it has that certain air of_ subjunctiveness _about it 
But at the same time it's reporting a fact-like statement... I think it'd be *las* though.


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Having thought about it more, I'm now completely unsure - did try googling 'sagði að hann' and the infinitive does seem to generally follow... I think what I was thinking of was the 'Hann sagðist (verb infinitive)' construction, which isn't even appropriate for the simple past tense. I'm mostly confusing myself. Time for bed I think.
This, Sindri, is exactly why we need you on the forum!


----------



## Brautryðjandinn í Úlfsham

Hello!
I learned the correct way to be either "Hann sagðist ekki hafa lesið bókina" or "Hann sagði að hann hefði ekki lesið bókina." If you say "Hann sagðist ekki lesa bókina" or "Hann sagði að hann læsi ekki bókina" it means "He said he wouldn't read the book". You need the subjunctive in sentences like "Hann sagði að..." and "Hann spurði hvort....".
Here are some examples:
Hann sagði að hún *tæki *of langan tíma. = Hann sagði: Hún *tekur *of langan tíma.
Hann spurði hvort hún *kæmi *með sér. = Hann spurði: *Kemur *hún með mér?
Hann sagði að sig *langaði *til að koma með. = Hann sagði: Mig *langar *til að koma með.
Hún spurði hvort hann *læsi *bókina. = Hún spurði: *Les *hann bókina?

If what the person said was in the past tense you use the verb "hafa". For example:
Hann sagði að hún *hefði tekið* of langan tíma. = Hann sagði: Hún *tók* of langan tíma.
Hann spurði hvort hún *hefði komið* með sér. = Hann spurði: *Kom *hún með mér?
Hann sagði að sig *hefði langað* til að koma með. = Hann sagði: Mig *langaði *til að koma með.
Hún spurði hvort hann *hefði lesið* bókina. = Hún spurði: *Las *hann bókina?

Could an fluent speaker please confirm if these are right or not? Thanks!


----------



## Brautryðjandinn í Úlfsham

Magb said:


> Let me add that that Wikipedia article in my opinion really confuses the issue by conflating V2 word order with preferred adverbial placement. II is the correct word order in the Scandinavian languages as well, and what pollodia said about the clause being "broken away" applies to them also. The difference they're referring to is that in Icelandic you would quite naturally say "He said that yesterday was he sick" (with V2 movement), while in the Scandinavian languages you normally say "He said that he was sick yesterday". But the difference here isn't really in how V2 works, it's in where the languages prefer to but the adverbial "yesterday". If you _do_ put the "yesterday" at the front of the dependent clause in Scandinavian, which is awkward but not entirely ungrammatical, the verb moves just like in Icelandic. And in the case of interrogative pronouns, they _do_ go at the front of the clause, so those clauses behave identically to the ones in Icelandic. (Edit: Got my wires crossed a bit there. The point here is of course that the interrogative pronouns _don't_ trigger V2, but I stand by my assertion that the difference between Icelandic and Swedish is one of preferred adverbial placement, not of V2 _per se_. Although perhaps V2 preferences ultimately do have something to do with the difference.)



I don't know if this will be of any use to you, but I think that in Icelandic it's more common to say "Hann sagði að hann hefði verið veikur í gær" (He said that he was/had been sick yesterday) than "Hann sagði að í gær hefði hann verið veikur" (He said that yesterday he was/had been sick) but I think both are correct.


----------

