![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Old Norse was copied or moved into Old Norse morphology with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
As far as I can see there is a blatant error in this section. The past participle of strong verbs, i.e. the ones without dental suffix, has NOTHING TO DO HERE. There is merely a homonymy in the declination (i.e. they look/sound alike). The grammaticalization (suffixation) of hinn/hit is something completely different; consult any old norse grammar. I tried to change the table to exclude the forms of "kominn", which should really be removed in order not to confuse. Could anyone please do this to assuage my distress? I sadly do not have the know-how to remove these forms myself; I have never really edited tables at Wikipedia. In advance: thanks!
Additionally: I am quite certain that this is wrong as well:
First of all, the sources are quite suspect, to say the least. Secondly, I am quite certain it is exactly the other way around, i.e. hinn (pre- and postpositioned) > inn (postpositioned) > -inn (encliticized and later grammaticalized). (to lend some credence to my argument, I should mention I have an MA in Old Norse, even though it is tacky "degree-dropping"). Furthermore, I am positive that the forms with /e/ (e.g. enn) are later forms, with a vowel reduction ([i] > [e]) induced probably by high token frequency. Sadly I do not, at the moment, have a source for these things at hand, but it should not be to difficult to procure as soon as I get home. In the meantime, or if I should come to forget, could anyone please help out? I am hesitant to change or delete without a proper source at hand.
-- Alexlykke ( talk) 10:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Past participle | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
komit (is come) | ||||||||
Number | Case | Neut. | Masc. | Fem. | ||||
Singular | Nominative | komi-t | komin-n | komin | ||||
Accusative | komn-a | |||||||
Genitive | komin-s | komin-nar | ||||||
Dative | komn-u | komin-um | komin-ni | |||||
Plural | Nominative | komin | komn-ir | komn-ar | ||||
Accusative | komn-a | |||||||
Genitive | komin-na | |||||||
Dative | komn-um |
From the main article. ᛭ LokiClock ( talk) 20:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Information required to document these items may likely be mined from texts that have already been referenced in the article. ᛭ LokiClock ( talk) 05:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
A notable complaint about Old Norse, largely I feel due to the sources for morphology, is that it is or was biased towards OWN, particularly OIC. Besides noting which paradigms merged in the dialects, what are some suggestions for improving the bias? I think we should go with neutralized versions of earlier Old Norse morphology and leave the ca. 13th-15th century tables for the individual languages' articles. One example of a neutralization would be using Ʀs in their proper locations, because the Western paradigms are easily inferred from this. Another would be using the diphthongs in the ablaut patterns, rather than the Eastern monophthongized vowels. Obviously, if a paradigm is drastically different, extra tables would be created, rather than distorting the paradigms beyond application to any of the dialects. ᛭ LokiClock ( talk) 03:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I've created these in my sandbox, but I'm worried about putting them up because the division of the stems into A-like and I-like is my doing, and the identification of nęs, klæði & ríki with the yo stems and iyo stems. In addition, I don't know the stem classification of kǫtt-like masculines, which hǫgg would, I further assume, be identified with. I do, however, have explicit identification of barn and tré with o (armr) and u (sonr) stems. But if my intuitions can be supported by further research, I'd hate for the tables, and the proposition of this division, to remain completely unmentioned. ᛭ LokiClock ( talk) 00:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
(copied from -- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 14:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)'s talk page)
Hello. The information on the gender of the past participle was sourced. Although there were weak verbs with an unrelated -inn, which you might have been thinking of, the past participles in -inn are in fact the article, and past participles are declined for gender whether they're weak or strong. In the future, if you question sourced content, please read the sources, and if a claim is not represented in the source tag it with {{ check source}} or {{ citation needed}}. ᛭ LokiClock ( talk) 12:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
"The comparative form as in Latin, other Germanic languages etc. is also corresponding to the agent noun-ending, which in Old Norse has a weak declension with roots in -an-stem inflection as well."
This observation feels a bit too amateurish and it would be best to skip it, IMO. There is no historical connection between the comparative and the agent-noun. The agent nouns are not weak in the other languages, so the similarity is pretty much restricted to the nominative. Even in Old Norse, the paradigms do not coincide, because the adjective weak declension does not coincide with the weak declension of nouns in much of the paradigm. The coincidence is not inherited from Proto-Indo-European, so the Latin comparison is irrelevant, and the Latin comparative ending -ior does not coincide exactly with the agent suffix -or in any case. I'm not deleting it mostly because I am pathologically reluctant to risk being involved in an emotional argument and edit conflict with the author of the sentence. -- Anonymous44 ( talk) 19:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Old Norse was copied or moved into Old Norse morphology with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
As far as I can see there is a blatant error in this section. The past participle of strong verbs, i.e. the ones without dental suffix, has NOTHING TO DO HERE. There is merely a homonymy in the declination (i.e. they look/sound alike). The grammaticalization (suffixation) of hinn/hit is something completely different; consult any old norse grammar. I tried to change the table to exclude the forms of "kominn", which should really be removed in order not to confuse. Could anyone please do this to assuage my distress? I sadly do not have the know-how to remove these forms myself; I have never really edited tables at Wikipedia. In advance: thanks!
Additionally: I am quite certain that this is wrong as well:
First of all, the sources are quite suspect, to say the least. Secondly, I am quite certain it is exactly the other way around, i.e. hinn (pre- and postpositioned) > inn (postpositioned) > -inn (encliticized and later grammaticalized). (to lend some credence to my argument, I should mention I have an MA in Old Norse, even though it is tacky "degree-dropping"). Furthermore, I am positive that the forms with /e/ (e.g. enn) are later forms, with a vowel reduction ([i] > [e]) induced probably by high token frequency. Sadly I do not, at the moment, have a source for these things at hand, but it should not be to difficult to procure as soon as I get home. In the meantime, or if I should come to forget, could anyone please help out? I am hesitant to change or delete without a proper source at hand.
-- Alexlykke ( talk) 10:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Past participle | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
komit (is come) | ||||||||
Number | Case | Neut. | Masc. | Fem. | ||||
Singular | Nominative | komi-t | komin-n | komin | ||||
Accusative | komn-a | |||||||
Genitive | komin-s | komin-nar | ||||||
Dative | komn-u | komin-um | komin-ni | |||||
Plural | Nominative | komin | komn-ir | komn-ar | ||||
Accusative | komn-a | |||||||
Genitive | komin-na | |||||||
Dative | komn-um |
From the main article. ᛭ LokiClock ( talk) 20:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Information required to document these items may likely be mined from texts that have already been referenced in the article. ᛭ LokiClock ( talk) 05:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
A notable complaint about Old Norse, largely I feel due to the sources for morphology, is that it is or was biased towards OWN, particularly OIC. Besides noting which paradigms merged in the dialects, what are some suggestions for improving the bias? I think we should go with neutralized versions of earlier Old Norse morphology and leave the ca. 13th-15th century tables for the individual languages' articles. One example of a neutralization would be using Ʀs in their proper locations, because the Western paradigms are easily inferred from this. Another would be using the diphthongs in the ablaut patterns, rather than the Eastern monophthongized vowels. Obviously, if a paradigm is drastically different, extra tables would be created, rather than distorting the paradigms beyond application to any of the dialects. ᛭ LokiClock ( talk) 03:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I've created these in my sandbox, but I'm worried about putting them up because the division of the stems into A-like and I-like is my doing, and the identification of nęs, klæði & ríki with the yo stems and iyo stems. In addition, I don't know the stem classification of kǫtt-like masculines, which hǫgg would, I further assume, be identified with. I do, however, have explicit identification of barn and tré with o (armr) and u (sonr) stems. But if my intuitions can be supported by further research, I'd hate for the tables, and the proposition of this division, to remain completely unmentioned. ᛭ LokiClock ( talk) 00:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
(copied from -- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 14:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)'s talk page)
Hello. The information on the gender of the past participle was sourced. Although there were weak verbs with an unrelated -inn, which you might have been thinking of, the past participles in -inn are in fact the article, and past participles are declined for gender whether they're weak or strong. In the future, if you question sourced content, please read the sources, and if a claim is not represented in the source tag it with {{ check source}} or {{ citation needed}}. ᛭ LokiClock ( talk) 12:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
"The comparative form as in Latin, other Germanic languages etc. is also corresponding to the agent noun-ending, which in Old Norse has a weak declension with roots in -an-stem inflection as well."
This observation feels a bit too amateurish and it would be best to skip it, IMO. There is no historical connection between the comparative and the agent-noun. The agent nouns are not weak in the other languages, so the similarity is pretty much restricted to the nominative. Even in Old Norse, the paradigms do not coincide, because the adjective weak declension does not coincide with the weak declension of nouns in much of the paradigm. The coincidence is not inherited from Proto-Indo-European, so the Latin comparison is irrelevant, and the Latin comparative ending -ior does not coincide exactly with the agent suffix -or in any case. I'm not deleting it mostly because I am pathologically reluctant to risk being involved in an emotional argument and edit conflict with the author of the sentence. -- Anonymous44 ( talk) 19:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)