[Swedish] Some questions about Swedish language
Carnby
I'm learning some Swedish to read some scientific books written in that
language. I found this clause: "USA torde för närvarande härbärgera ung.
hälften half världens judar, där de framför allt bo i New York [...]". I
have some problems withthe word "torde" and with the verb "bo": why is it
infinitive? Shouldn't it be "bor"?
Thanks in advance.
A R:nen
(What's your problem with "torde", it's a normal (if a bit antiquated)
construction for marking slight uncertainty about what is being told?
Also, it should of course be "hälften av" (or "af").)
It is not infinitive but rather present tense plural (but the form is
indeed identical with the infinitive with very few exceptions, "äro"
for "vara" is the only one I can come up with). I guess it's an old text?
The plural forms were lost over the 20th century, their final major
institutional stronghold (newly enacted Swedish-language legislation
of Finland) was lost around 1970, in Sweden they were basically
extinct already in the 1950s.
Additionally, even earlier, there also was a separate form for
2nd person plural: "vi/de äro" but "I ären". I believe this one died
well before WWI, but at least it was still included in some early 20th
century grammars.
phog...@abo.fi
Torde comes from "töra", "tör", "torde", "tort", which is mainly used
only in the form "torde", meaning "should probably". "Bo" indicates
that you are reading an old book: in older literary Swedish, verbs
still had a specific plural form, which in the present tense is the
same as the infinitive (with the exception of "är", which had the
plural "äro"). So, in today's Swedish we both write and say "där de
framför allt bor i New York", but as late as in the nineteen sixties
you still could encounter the old form "där de framför allt bo i New
York".
The disappearance of the plural forms from written Swedish was a long
process; if you are interested, there is a whole book about it, Lars
Alfvegren's "Vi gingo och vi gick". ("Gingo" is the plural past tense
of "gå"; old "vi gingo" means the same as "vi gick", i.e. we went.)
Välkommen till svenska språkets underbara värld, by the way. :)
Trond Engen
> "Carnby" <linnet...@tiscali.it> writes:
>
>> I'm learning some Swedish to read some scientific books written in
>> that language. I found this clause: "USA torde för närvarande
>> härbärgera ung. hälften half världens judar, där de framför allt bo
>> i New York [...]". I have some problems withthe word "torde" and
>> with the verb "bo": why is it infinitive? Shouldn't it be "bor"?
>
> (What's your problem with "torde", it's a normal (if a bit
> antiquated) construction for marking slight uncertainty about what is
> being told? [...])
Almost needless to say, it's used the same way in Norwegian. However, in
Norwegian the main meaning of the verb is "dare".
"Jeg torde ikke gå." = "I didn't dare to go."
The usage in the OP's example is due to semantic development, probably
from "challenge". "New York torde ..." ~ "New York should be a
challenger for the title as ...".
In the meaning "dare" it's also present in some dialects in an
originally reflexive form with -s. This seems to point at "challenge".
(Trondheim dial. "æ tørs" (-s = "oneself") = "I dare" <- "I challenge
(or bet, or risk) myself"?)
Hellquist says that the verb is of uncertain origin and with several of
its forms apparently contaminated with ON <þurfa> "need". Could it
actually be the same as Eng. <dare> -- with even the initial þ from
contamination?
> [Bo] is not infinitive but rather present tense plural (but the form
> is indeed identical with the infinitive with very few exceptions,
> "äro" for "vara" is the only one I can come up with). I guess it's an
> old text?
>
> The plural forms were lost over the 20th century, their final major
> institutional stronghold (newly enacted Swedish-language legislation
> of Finland) was lost around 1970, in Sweden they were basically
> extinct already in the 1950s.
They were lost in spoken language centuries ago, weren't they?
--
Trond Engen
- er så søt, han tør og prøver
phog...@abo.fi
>
> >> I'm learning some Swedish to read some scientific books written in
> >> that language. I found this clause: "USA torde för närvarande
> >> härbärgera ung. hälften half världens judar, där de framför allt bo
> >> i New York [...]". I have some problems withthe word "torde" and
> >> with the verb "bo": why is it infinitive? Shouldn't it be "bor"?
>
> > (What's your problem with "torde", it's a normal (if a bit
> > antiquated) construction for marking slight uncertainty about what is
> > being told? [...])
>
> Almost needless to say, it's used the same way in Norwegian. However, in
> Norwegian the main meaning of the verb is "dare".
In Swedish, "töra" is not used in that way, but the deponent verb
"töras" is.
>
> "Jeg torde ikke gå." = "I didn't dare to go."
>
> The usage in the OP's example is due to semantic development, probably
> from "challenge". "New York torde ..." ~ "New York should be a
> challenger for the title as ...".
>
> In the meaning "dare" it's also present in some dialects in an
> originally reflexive form with -s. This seems to point at "challenge".
> (Trondheim dial. "æ tørs" (-s = "oneself") = "I dare" <- "I challenge
> (or bet, or risk) myself"?)
>
> Hellquist says that the verb is of uncertain origin and with several of
> its forms apparently contaminated with ON <þurfa> "need". Could it
> actually be the same as Eng. <dare> -- with even the initial þ from
> contamination?
Well, at least the deponent verb form "töras" is used in Swedish in
the meaning "to dare": töras, törs, tordes, torts (although I would
myself prefer the Low German import våga, and I feel very insecure
about actually using "tordes" and "torts"). Modern Icelandic has þora
= to dare and þurfa = to need, which are quite distinct.
>
> > [Bo] is not infinitive but rather present tense plural (but the form
> > is indeed identical with the infinitive with very few exceptions,
> > "äro" for "vara" is the only one I can come up with). I guess it's an
> > old text?
>
> > The plural forms were lost over the 20th century, their final major
> > institutional stronghold (newly enacted Swedish-language legislation
> > of Finland) was lost around 1970, in Sweden they were basically
> > extinct already in the 1950s.
>
> They were lost in spoken language centuries ago, weren't they?
I don't know about centuries, but certainly they were extinct in all
mainstream dialects long before they were abolished in written
language. However, I seem to recall that Halland Swedish had even
personal endings - vi kommom - as late as in the twentieth century.
Arne Dehli Halvorsen
>
> Hellquist says that the verb is of uncertain origin and with several of
> its forms apparently contaminated with ON <şurfa> "need". Could it
> actually be the same as Eng. <dare> -- with even the initial ş from
> contamination?
But (dialects of) Norwegian still maintain the verb "turva", isn't that
right? I have heard sentences including the past form: "tarv".
By the way, what is the story behind English "durst" (archaic past of
"dare") - where did the "s" or "st" come from?
Arne
-gjorde det som tarvst
phog...@abo.fi
> Trond Engen wrote:
>
> > Hellquist says that the verb is of uncertain origin and with several of
> > actually be the same as Eng. <dare> -- with even the initial þ from
> > contamination?
>
> But (dialects of) Norwegian still maintain the verb "turva", isn't that
> right? I have heard sentences including the past form: "tarv".
There is also the verb "tarvas" in Swedish ("to be necessary, to be
needed"). IMHO it is mostly used in the past tense ("tarvades").
The verb has also been borrowed into Finnish, where "tarve" =
"necessity, need" and "tarvita" = "to need" are part of core
vocabulary.
Tor Pedo
<arne...@online.no> wrote:
>But (dialects of) Norwegian still maintain the verb "turva", isn't that
>right? I have heard sentences including the past form: "tarv".
>
I use "tar - turte - turta"; not sure about the infinitive. But like
Trond wrote, this word means "need", while "tør - torde - torda"
usually means "dare".
--
Tor Pedo
Trond Engen
> On Oct 26, 12:05 am, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>
>> A R:nen skreiv:
>>
>>> "Carnby" <linnetsNOS...@tiscali.it> writes:
>>>
>>>> [...]". I have some problems withthe word "torde" [...]
>>>
>>> (What's your problem with "torde", it's a normal (if a bit
>>> antiquated) construction for marking slight uncertainty about what
>>> is being told? [...])
>>
>> Almost needless to say, it's used the same way in Norwegian.
>> However, in Norwegian the main meaning of the verb is "dare".
>
> In Swedish, "töra" is not used in that way, but the deponent verb
> "töras" is.
>
>> In the meaning "dare" it's also present in some dialects in an
>> originally reflexive form with -s. [...]
>
> Well, at least the deponent verb form "töras" is used in Swedish in
> the meaning "to dare": töras, törs, tordes, torts (although I would
> myself prefer the Low German import våga, and I feel very insecure
> about actually using "tordes" and "torts"). Modern Icelandic has þora
> = to dare and þurfa = to need, which are quite distinct.
Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Hellquist held that
although these verbs are distinct, some forms of 'töra' are
contaminated. Or changed in analogy. That's how I read him, anyway.
The reason why I didn't use the word 'deponent' for the s-form is that I
wasn't sure if it's appropriate. I don't think the verb 'töras' ever was
passive. It's rather an old reflexive. "Jag törs icke gå där" ~ "I don't
risk myself going there". Thinking again, it may still be classified as
a deponent verb, but a deponent reflexive rather than a deponent passive.
It's often said that the Scandinavian languages developed a passive
voice from the clitic <-s(t)> < <-sk> < the reflexive pronoun <sik>.
That's correct, of course, but also a bit too simple. With a singular
subject it's generally passive, but in the plural it's often reciprocal:
"Vi ses!" = "We'll see eachother!" (= "See you!"); "Vi møttes i baren" =
"We met (eachother) in the bar". The reciprocal meaning is visible also
in the deponent (!) verb 'slåss' "fight". "Vi slåss" = "We fight
(eachother)" -> "Jeg slåss" = "I fight".
This reflexive (-> reciprocal) -> passive -> deponent development is
interesting but I struggle to grasp the details of it. Part of the
history are the old verbs like <tykkje> "think", which seem to take all
sorts of cases. Here are some glimpses of history, stolen from around
the web:
"Hví eru o,ndótt
augu Freyju?
Þikki mér ór augum
eldr um brenna."
(Þrymskviða)
"Ekki hefk með flimtun farit,
fullvel ættak til þess varit
(yrkja kann ek vánu verr)
vita þykkisk þat maðrinn hverr."
(Málsháttakvæði)
"Thi haffuer ieg nw føghet meg effter eder willie, oc begæring oc will
nw foregiffue huess meg tycker got at wære, ij thenne handell, [...]"
(Huore krancke [...] aff broder Paulo Helie 1528)
"Han tykkjest meg lik gudan’ å vera
mannen der som sit rett yverfor deg,
tett ved, og til den ovsøte røysti
lyttar han løynsamt"
(Sapfo, umset av Per Esben Svelstad (2007))
--
Trond Engen
- drowning in data
Brian M. Scott
<news:35SdncKyco-...@lyse.net> in sci.lang:
[...]
> By the way, what is the story behind English "durst"
> (archaic past of "dare") - where did the "s" or "st"
> come from?
OE <durran>, 3 sg. pres. <dearr>, pl. pres. <durron>, 3 sg.
pret. <dorste>. (It's a preterite-present verb, originally
of strong Class III.) <Durst> is therefore the regular
development; according to the OED, <dared> appeared in the
16th century. <Dares> in the 3 sg. pres. is also a 16th
century innovation; in ME it was typically <he dar> 'he
dares' (and from the 15th century <he dare> 'he dares').
Brian
wugi
Similarly in Dutch:
durven, durfde, gedurfd = to dare,
apparently contaminated in meaning by a now lost
*dorren,
which maintains a dialectic past
ik dorst ~ ik durfde.
guido
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/index.html
Richard Wordingham
news:1h0ew5a218nq7$.139kwl2iht22k$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:11:13 +0200, Arne Dehli Halvorsen
> <arne...@online.no> wrote in
> <news:35SdncKyco-...@lyse.net> in sci.lang:
>
> [...]
>
>> By the way, what is the story behind English "durst"
>> (archaic past of "dare") - where did the "s" or "st"
>> come from?
>
> OE <durran>, 3 sg. pres. <dearr>, pl. pres. <durron>, 3 sg.
> pret. <dorste>. (It's a preterite-present verb, originally
> of strong Class III.) <Durst> is therefore the regular
Is it? Hasn't 'durst' been partly reformed on the forms in -u-?
The PIE stem is *dHers 'dare', cf. Greek _tharsein_ 'to be bold', so the
question is not where /s/ comes from but where it went. I presume we have s
> z by Verner's law, with the /s/ being preserved or restored by the dental
of the weak past. In the other forms, we then have z > r in West Germanic.
Gothic preserves the original -rs- in all forms.
Richard.
Trond Engen
> "Arne Dehli Halvorsen" :
[Trond Engen:]
>>> Hellquist says that the verb is of uncertain origin and with
>>> several of its forms apparently contaminated with ON <þurfa>
>>> "need". Could it actually be the same as Eng. <dare> -- with even
>>> the initial þ from contamination?
>>
>> But (dialects of) Norwegian still maintain the verb "turva", isn't
>> that right? I have heard sentences including the past form: "tarv".
>>
>> By the way, what is the story behind English "durst" (archaic past
>> of "dare") - where did the "s" or "st" come from?
>
> Similarly in Dutch:
> durven, durfde, gedurfd = to dare,
> apparently contaminated in meaning by a now lost
> *dorren,
> which maintains a dialectic past
> ik dorst ~ ik durfde.
Interesting, and very close to ON <þurfa>. Here are the 1st. p. sing.
paradigms of ON <þurfa>, ON/OSw <þora>, NN <tore> and OE <durran> (if
I'm not too mistaken):
Inf. þurfa þora/þura tore durran
Pres. þarf þorar/þor/þör torer/tør dearr
Pret. þurfta þorða torde dorste
P.P. þurft þorat tort dorren
There are several obvious obstacles against connecting <þora> to
<durran>: The initial þ, the loss of -s-, the vowel in the present
tence, and the weak conjugation. Still trying to make my case, I also
find some support:
- <þora> has no known etymology. That may suggest irregular development.
- The verbs are in complimentary distribution, <þora> in NGmc. and
<durran> elsewhere.
- The contamination of meaning is known from both Danish and Dutch, and
could be old.
- The regular correspondence between Scand. /þ-/ and Cont. Gmc. /d-/ may
have contributed to the þ- in Scandinavian.
- The -rs-/-rr- is shortened to -r- in Frisian.
- According to Hellquist, the forms of <þora> without the reflexive -s
were used almost exclusively as a modal verb in the oldest sources. That
fits well with a preterite-present verb -- like <durran>.
- The past participle is definitely strong today. That may or may not be
relevant. I don't know if it's well attested in ON.
The irony is that the forms Hellquist sees as contaminated by a strong
verb, presumably <þurfa>, would be regular and the forms he finds
regular would be contaminated by the weak paradigm.
(This message could equally well be a reply to Brian, Richard, or even
myself. It just happened to be NL 'durven' that got me going.)
--
Trond Engen
- tør der andre tier. Med god grunn. De andre, mener jeg.
Prai Jei
<1193306051....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
> same as the infinitive (with the exception of "är", which had the
> plural "äro").
That's cleared one mystery up for me. My closest encounter with the Swedish
language has been a job lot of tapes of Swedish Christmas songs. I was
puzzled by the title "Vi äro musikanten" wondering what that extra o was
doing there.
(And haven't I heard the melody of "När juldagsmorgon glimmar" somewhere
else?)
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
phog...@abo.fi
> phogl...@abo.fi (or somebody else of the same name) wrote in message
> <1193306051.804272.90...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > same as the infinitive (with the exception of "är", which had the
> > plural "äro").
>
> That's cleared one mystery up for me. My closest encounter with the Swedish
> language has been a job lot of tapes of Swedish Christmas songs. I was
> puzzled by the title "Vi äro musikanten" wondering what that extra o was
> doing there.
Probably "Vi äro musikanter". "Vi äro musikanter" would mean "we are
the musician".
Marc
> development; according to the OED, <dared> appeared in the
> 16th century. <Dares> in the 3 sg. pres. is also a 16th
Isn't this some kind of subjunctive, the way some people (seen as
uneducated, in the US South) use "I wished" in the present tense?
Marc
franek
> could be old.
This contamination is also known from German, which originally had two
distinct verbs, but one of them has only survived in dialects.
Some forms of these verbs sounded alike and they tended to merge, and
indeed,
the surviving one seems to have inherited the meaning of the obsolete
one:
durren (obsolete) = icelandic þora / swedish töras / dare
http://germazope.uni-trier.de/Projects/WBB/woerterbuecher/dwb/wbgui?word=durren&lemid=GD07038
dürfen (surviving) = icelandic þurfa / swedish tarva (+töra) /
originally: need; today: may, (+dare)
http://germazope.uni-trier.de/Projects/WBB/woerterbuecher/dwb/wbgui?word=durfen&lemid=GD07000
Today Standard German usually distinguishes:
- dürfen = may, be allowed to (+regionally: dare)
- bedürfen = need
- er dürfte kommen = han torde komma (uncertainty)
Swiss German dialects show several patterns:
- i törf = I may / (no trace of dare)
- i tör = I may / i tar = I dare
- i tar = I may + I dare
phog...@abo.fi
Excuse me, I meant to say "Vi äro musikanten" would mean "we are the
musician". The suffix -en is not a plural, it is a suffixed article
"the". "Vi äro musikanter" means "we are musicians".
Prai Jei
<1193836103.3...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
Sorry, "musikanter" it is. That's me giving the title from memory without
looking it up.
Prai Jei
<35SdncKyco-...@lyse.net>:
> By the way, what is the story behind English "durst" (archaic past of
> "dare") - where did the "s" or "st" come from?
I only know of the word from its over-use in the "quarrel scene" in
Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", where I always took it to be incorrect usage
of the "thou" form.
Cassius: When Caesar lived he durst not thus have moved me.
Brutus: Peace, peace; you durst not so have tempted him.
C: I durst not?
B: No.
C: What, durst not tempt him?
B: For your life you durst not.
Trond Engen
>> - The contamination of meaning is known from both Danish and Dutch,
>> and could be old.
>
> This contamination is also known from German, which originally had
> two distinct verbs, but one of them has only survived in dialects.
> Some forms of these verbs sounded alike and they tended to merge, and
> indeed, the surviving one seems to have inherited the meaning of the
> obsolete one:
>
> durren (obsolete) = icelandic şora / swedish töras / dare
> http://germazope.uni-trier.de/Projects/WBB/woerterbuecher/dwb/wbgui?word=durren&lemid=GD07038
Interesting. The Grimms made the connection between the Nordic and the
East/West Germanic verbs. Something happened later that made
etymologists think differently. That _durst_ be the interpretation of
the initial consonant, but I don't see anything supposed to be going on
that wasn't known by the brothers.
What can be read from the different German dialect forms quoted?
> dürfen (surviving) = icelandic şurfa / swedish tarva (+töra) /
> originally: need; today: may, (+dare)
> http://germazope.uni-trier.de/Projects/WBB/woerterbuecher/dwb/wbgui?word=durfen&lemid=GD07000
This is regular with HG /d-/ corresponding to /ş-/ elsewhere.
> Today Standard German usually distinguishes:
> - dürfen = may, be allowed to (+regionally: dare)
> - bedürfen = need
> - er dürfte kommen = han torde komma (uncertainty)
>
> Swiss German dialects show several patterns:
> - i törf = I may / (no trace of dare)
> - i tör = I may / i tar = I dare
> - i tar = I may + I dare
Used as independent verbs they weren't really that similar. Used
modally, *darf "is needed to" and *dar "has a good chance to" are close.
Maybe that's where the contamination first occured.
But I'm still nowhere near a convincing explanation for the crucial ş-
in NG <şora>.
We have something like
<dürfen>,<şurva> < */şerfan/ < */terp-/
<durren>, <durran> < */derran/ < */dhers-/
<şora> < */tHoran/? < */tor-/?
or < */tHeran/? < */ter-/?
Seeing it this way, there's an open shortcut. Could the voiced aspirated
plosive */dh-/ in the 'dare' word have been devoiced for some reason in
what was to become North Germanic and thus avoided the sound shift? An
important compound?
--
Trond Engen
- terper på det samme