# Icelandic: Big sentence switch.



## ShakeyX

England á landamæri við Skotland í norðri, Wales í vestri og annarsstaðar móta Norðursjór, Írlandshaf, Keltahaf, Bristol-sund og Ermarsund landamæri þess

Just wanted to try and translation and someone correct if it's wrong;

England has a border with Scotland in the north, Wales in the west and elsewhere The North Sea, Irish Sea, Celtic Sea... form it's boarder.

The main problems I ran into was the big switch between the seas and the verb Móta... is it definitely that the SEAS form the BOARDER or am I missing the point.

Also why the lack of the definitive article in the name of the seas, and landamæri þess (as this is the genitive of það right... land).

And finally what is the best way to translate í norðri í vestri etc...


----------



## Alxmrphi

> England has a border with Scotland in the north, Wales in the west and elsewhere The North Sea, Irish Sea, Celtic Sea... form *its* boarder.


 I think that translation is fine.
The verb coming before the subject is quite normal and something that will just become completely bland and normal to you.
Think about '_Next to England are Scotland and Wales_'. The subjects _Scotland and Wales_ come after the verb _are_.
There are just certain environments where it becomes unremarkable and you don't think about it in English. It's exactly the same thing in Icelandic (though you can do it a lot more).


> Also why the lack of the definitive article in the name of the seas, and landamæri þess (as this is the genitive of það right... land).


Proper nouns like these don't typically occur with the definite article in Icelandic. That's just the way it is, really.
My advice would be to be make a mental note of exceptions when they_* do*_ occur with the definite article.


> And finally what is the best way to translate í norðri í vestri etc...


The way you did (_In the north/west _etc.)


----------



## ShakeyX

All of that makes sense bar why landamæri isn't landamærin þess.

I thought for a second when I noted that landamæri was plural that maybe it's because you would say "forms It's boarders" and not "forms the boarders of it" however why would this not use the definite article as it is "of" something. The only exceptions i've found to that so far are things that don't technically BELONG to you such as vinur minn or other family members.

Why would the object, a boarder, not conform to being put in the definite article when using ownership.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Landamæri only exists in the plural so don't always think that it has to be _border*s*_. It can equally be translated in a lot of cases as just _*a* border_.
A lot of introductory Icelandic material does a great disservice to new learners in the way it presents how possession is treated in the syntax.
People always overgeneralise that you need an article with the pronouns and that's not their fault because it's so rare to see decent explanations of what actually is going on.
You only use the article with real, tangible nouns - not abstract ideas like_ ideas_, _advice_ and this case_ borders_.

There would be no distinction in how you would treat 'the borders of it' or 'its borders' (no apostrophe) in Icelandic so it's not about that. They'd be translated and treated as the same thing when coming from English. There is no tricky distinction between the two types we have to worry about (or rather, foreign learners of English have to worry about). About the no article thing, I can see how you've thought of the rule and the information is right, but it doesn't explain why you have to say_ kona*n* mín_ and not_ kona mín_. It can't be about what you can physically own in these cases when there is just some irregularity. Having said that, that also means the tangible/real noun explanation is not perfect in that case. The best way to treat this is to take away the quirks with words of family relations and just think of other nouns. There, the rule generally holds true that tangible ideas can take the article (it's said to be more formal without them) but normal real tangible nouns usually occur with the definite article (but don't have to) while intangible nouns and abstract ideas almost always occur without the article.


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Well if you think about it, the borders of a country aren't really objects that belong to the country any more than your friend is an object belonging to you. I suspect the 'logic' behind using the definite article or not would be related to differentiating between other such objects? Like eplið mitt is being set apart from all the other apples that do not belong to me, and there's not really any reason to do that when talking about the borders of England. Although my understanding of this is pretty tenuous, to be honest. I don't see how landamæri would be a proper noun, though, Alex? 

P.S. Border = edge, boarder = somebody boarding/lodging somewhere. It's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> I don't see how landamæri would be a proper noun, though, Alex?


 Aha, for this I was replying to the "_Also why the lack of the definitive article in the name of the seas..._" part, not about landamæri.


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Ah, of course. Oops.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Silver_Biscuit said:


> Ah, of course. Oops.


Ahah no prob.

I'm trying to locate that illustration/layout that came up a year or two ago where we listed the types of nouns that took articles or not. It was full of examples but I can't find it when I search. Do you remember the title of the thread?

*Edit: *found it.
I forgot it was all in Icelandic. Probably not worth suggesting going back to look at it as I think we're all in a better situation to explain it in a better way again now.


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

ShakeyX said:


> And finally what is the best way to translate í norðri í vestri etc...



Personally I would translate this in this instance as _England shares a border with Scotland __*to* the north_. Just because a border is a line and _*in* the north_feels like it applies to too large an area for me. But you've understood it fine and in other contexts _in the north_ would undoubtedly be a better translation than _to the north_.


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Ahahah þetta var svo langt síðan! Ég þoli ekki að lesa íslensku sem ég skrifaði á þeim tíma, sé alltaf svo mörg mistök. Samt geri ég alveg pottþétt ennþá mörg mistök sem ég tek ekki eftir núna. 

It does break into English towards the end though, but I think we got a bit sidetracked, as so often happens


----------



## Alxmrphi

It's a bit of a heavy article to read, but I only wanted to bring your attention to the middle of page 21 and 22.
Just to show I'm not pulling all this out of thin air. I thought it'd be good to see a real-life linguistic description.



> (22) If the noun in the (definite) Noun Genitive Construction is abstract, there is generally only one option. That is, the noun may usually not take the suffixed definite article and the proprial article is also excluded, irrespective of the properties of the genitive:
> _a. skoðun mín / *skoðun*in* mín _
> _b. skoðun Jóns / *skoðun*in* hans Jóns _
> _c. skoðun kennarans / *skoðun*in* kennarans_


You can read on to page 24 while it discusses other issues about it.
Don't get too bogged down with it though if it's a bit linguistics-heavy.


----------



## ShakeyX

The only reason I went with IN the north rather than TO is just because the form of norðri resembles the dative rather than the accusative, which i took to indicate location rather than motion (in rather than to).

And yeh i just had a quick glance, may attempt to read it all later. I think the hardest thing for me is getting rid of the idea that THE in english equals the definite article. There has been some instances where a saying that uses "the" and i've expected similar but upon thinking hard about it, the THE in even the english sentence doesnt indicate anything special or particular. (I did have an example but it evades me) I think I need to concentrate more on the purpose of actually using the definite article in icelandic, what does it add, or distinguish.


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

ShakeyX said:


> The only reason I went with IN the north rather than TO is just because the form of norðri resembles the dative rather than the accusative, which i took to indicate location rather than motion (in rather than to).



You're absolutely right on every count! I was just speaking for how I would personally translate it (not a literal translation).


----------

