NORN KJOKL

The Orkney & Shetland Norn Forum
It is currently Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:27 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:52 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:00 pm
Posts: 320
Norn:

Skεkla koməna rīna tūna
swa'rta hæsta blæita brūna
fo'mtəna (fjo'mtan) hāla
and fo'mtəna (fjo'mtan) bjadnis a kwāra hāla

Old Norse:

Skekill er kominn ríðandi á túnit
á svǫrtum hesti með bletti á brúnni
fimmtán halar
ok fimmtán bǫrn á hverjum hala.

English:

A bug-bear [*skekill] has come riding into the home-field (the tun) on a black horse having a white spot (blæita) on its brow (brūna), and fifteen tails, and with fifteen children on each tail.

Comments:

Cf. a passage from Sturlungasaga:
þá er Loptr reið á túnit, kvað hann þetta: Hér ferr grýla í garð ofan ok hefir á sér hala fimmtán

JJ: All the old grammatical endings are levelled to -a, except in "bjadnis" which has got the Eng. plural ending -s.

HN: bjadnis < def. barnit + Eng. pl. -s. Most of the old prepositions are dropped. Notice the usage of the English conjunction "and".

http://nornlanguage.x10.mx/index.php?shettxt/21gryle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:09 am
Posts: 1
Hi, greetings from Orkney

I just had a thought.
You said: HN: bjadnis < def. barnit + Eng. pl. -s.

Then I thought: Could it possibly be bǫrn --> assimilation to bǫnn --> segmentation to something like bodn which somehow ends up as "bjadn" --> then add Scots plural -is to get "bjadnis"?

So, in other words, we don't need to assume the definite -it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:00 pm
Posts: 89
Location: Paris
It would be strange to have a definite singular form after fjomtan (fifteen), wouldn't it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 9:06 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:00 pm
Posts: 320
Ragnhild wrote:
Hi, greetings from Orkney

Welcome onboard, Ragnhild!! :)

Quote:
Then I thought: Could it possibly be bǫrn --> assimilation to bǫnn --> segmentation to something like bodn which somehow ends up as "bjadn" --> then add Scots plural -is to get "bjadnis"?

So, in other words, we don't need to assume the definite -it?

Well, this is another possibility, of course, and it's not necessary to assume stages like bǫnn --> bodn, as a) there are examples of 'a' breaking into 'ja' in Jakobsen's dictionary; b) the alleged change "o > ja" would look much less realistic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 9:10 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:00 pm
Posts: 320
Kråka wrote:
It would be strange to have a definite singular form after fjomtan (fifteen), wouldn't it?

It would not be perceived a definite noun by that time, because the grammar had already been lost and a number of old definite forms were used in neutral (=indefinite) context, see more examples here: http://nornlanguage.x10.mx/index.php?shet_gram#a21


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group