Learn Northern Germanic the exciting way

[Drydic]

stop acting stupid

Glass houses.

And how, pray thou tellest, am I acting stupid?

[Travis B.]

I'd describe T-V in Norwegian as slightly more common than "thou" in contemporary English.

Thou is not used at all in contemporary English. Not. At. All.

Well, there are English dialects that use, to this day, its modern cognate therein, tha, in everyday speech... but that's an informal/dialectal thing as opposed to a T/V thing per se...

[hwhatting]

One question: the matter of using the informal second person du in the continental NG languages, as I have always wondered about this. Can you really use these forms in Sweden or Denmark when approaching a stranger, say an older man or woman, to ask something like "Can you tell me, please, how I can get to the station?". It would certainly raise an eyebrow in European French to ask "S'il te plaît, tu peux m'indiquer la direction à la gare?", and in Hungarian the equivalent would be considered extremely rude.

I can't speak for Norway or Denmark, but in Sweden this would be completely normal and the expected form to use in that situation, yes. There are some people (not many) who insist on using the plural "polite" form, but that just tends to come off as either confusing ("is there anyone else here?") or weird and slightly arrogant.

It's best just to think of Swedish as a language without a T/V distinction.

I agree.

I remember reading in a magazine article about Sweden that the only person with whom you'd use the formal pronoun in Sweden is the king. Is that true or is that one of these "how quaint" stories journalists like to make up?

[Åge Kruger]

I remember reading in a magazine article about Sweden that the only person with whom you'd use the formal pronoun in Sweden is the king. Is that true or is that one of these "how quaint" stories journalists like to make up?

There was an interview recently with the King (he's been a very naughty boy), and it was all 'ni' this and 'ni' that - no du-ing at all.

[Ulrike Meinhof]

I remember reading in a magazine article about Sweden that the only person with whom you'd use the formal pronoun in Sweden is the king. Is that true or is that one of these "how quaint" stories journalists like to make up?

There was an interview recently with the King (he's been a very naughty boy), and it was all 'ni' this and 'ni' that - no du-ing at all.

I thought third person was customary, that is addressing him as "kungen" ('the king').

[Åge Kruger]

I remember reading in a magazine article about Sweden that the only person with whom you'd use the formal pronoun in Sweden is the king. Is that true or is that one of these "how quaint" stories journalists like to make up?

There was an interview recently with the King (he's been a very naughty boy), and it was all 'ni' this and 'ni' that - no du-ing at all.

I thought third person was customary, that is addressing him as "kungen" ('the king').

The transcript I read had so many ni's it was knobbly.

[adder]

I used to learn Swedish for a few months long time ago but I didn't have anyone to practice with so almost all is gone now. But I remember a bit of history. Until the beginning of World War II Swedish had a bit more complex verb conjugation. There were 3 forms in total, one for all persons in singular, one for 1PL and 3PL, and one for 2PL. I guess "ni" is derived from "I" which stood for "ye". In modern Swedish both the special ending and "I" has gotten dropped. You would also change the Genitive/Possessive pronoun if "ni" was used to address someone with respect. It would be capitalized "Ers" for all. When "I" disappeared, the exclusive ending for 2PL disappeared but still it remained more complex than it is now (the change to modern conjugation took place in the 70s, I guess).

Verbs: lyssna (root: lyssna-) and köpa (root: köp-)

Until WWII (I think I read it was in the 1930s but I might be wrong)

Present Indicative
SG lyssnar köper
vi lyssna köpa
I lyssnen köpen
de lyssna köpa

Past Indicative
SG, 1PL, 2PL lyssnade, köpte
I lyssnaden, köpten

Future Indicative
SG skall lyssna / köpa
vi skola lyssna / köpa
I skolen lyssna / köpa
de skola lyssna / köpa

Imperative
du lyssna! /köp!
vi lyssnom! / köpom!
I lyssnen! / köpen!

Therefore the verb "ha" ("hava") was conjugated: har, har, har, ha, han, ha in the Present Indicative Tense and Past Indicative forms were "hade" and "haden". This additive -(e)n was also for modal verbs so the same goes for må ("I mån lyssna", ) and the Past Indicative form of skola (I skullen lyssna).

Around 70s "I" disappeared and with its disappearance all "I" verb forms disappeared.

Does anyone know if there was some equivalent of this in other Northern Germanic languages?

EDIT: The Future Indicative tense typo ousted. As Miekko noticed I had put "t" for the 2nd group of verbs (taking -er ending in the Present tense), I'm leaving original dates, I just added an info it might be wrong. I hope people more into Scandinavian languages can tell the true dates when the changes took place.

[Travis B.]

IIRC these changes actually occurred well before then (aside from the variations in the use/non-use of ni), but survived in writing long after they had died out completely in speech...

About I versus ni, ni came to be when the -en ending that came along with I was lost; due to I often coming after the verb due to verb-second word order, the /n/ in the -en had effectively attached itself to I and was not lost when I came immediately after the verb, thus yielding ni.

(Oh, and by the way, I have heard that at least some have been trying to bring back the use of ni these days, even though du still remains the usual second person singular pronoun...)

[Miekko]

adder,
I am pretty sure you're wrong about the form "köpta", as well as about the timing of the changes - in press, the verb inflections did remain for a long while longer, but already by the interwar period they were falling by the wayside.

[Travis B.]

adder,
I am pretty sure you're wrong about the form "köpta", as well as about the timing of the changes - in press, the verb inflections did remain for a long while longer, but already by the interwar period they were falling by the wayside.

As you would know this better than I would, I assume, how late did these inflections last in everyday speech?

[Ulrike Meinhof]

adder,
I am pretty sure you're wrong about the form "köpta", as well as about the timing of the changes - in press, the verb inflections did remain for a long while longer, but already by the interwar period they were falling by the wayside.

And in speech, they were long gone since centuries before then. (though I suppose you can pinpoint that more exactly)

Also, I'm pretty sure that 'I' and '-en' were dropped in favour of 'ni' and the normal plural a long time before the plurals went altogether.

[Miekko]

-en in plural imperatives still exists in a number of dialects, though. (Mine is one of them).

[Aszev]

I wish Aszev were writing this thread. Otherwise it's like trying to learn English from Viktor

<3

Aszev does know a lot about Swedish, altho as I recall he also has some particular ideas of how things should be done. Come to think of it, I suppose I do too. It's true he would be an asset, but I think we can manage without him.

I never mix my personal opinions with facts, however.

I remember reading in a magazine article about Sweden that the only person with whom you'd use the formal pronoun in Sweden is the king. Is that true or is that one of these "how quaint" stories journalists like to make up?

There was an interview recently with the King (he's been a very naughty boy), and it was all 'ni' this and 'ni' that - no du-ing at all.

I thought third person was customary, that is addressing him as "kungen" ('the king').

The transcript I read had so many ni's it was knobbly.

In theory, you're supposed to address him with 'Kungen'. It used to be 'Ers Majestät', but in some attempt to casualize the monarchy, Carl XVI chose to change it when he ascended to the throne. The fact that they used 'ni' in that interview (which at least to me looks quite off, for the record), is probably due to the fact that it's increasingly being seen as a formal pronoun.

post about 2ppl

This post is incorrect pretty much all the way, I'm afraid.

(Oh, and by the way, I have heard that at least some have been trying to bring back the use of ni these days, even though du still remains the usual second person singular pronoun...)

This is correct, but not widespread enough to be called general or common, imo. People are generally divided on the issue, for some, 'ni' is indeed a formal/polite pronoun, while for others (like me), it's strictly plural.

adder,
I am pretty sure you're wrong about the form "köpta", as well as about the timing of the changes - in press, the verb inflections did remain for a long while longer, but already by the interwar period they were falling by the wayside.

As you would know this better than I would, I assume, how late did these inflections last in everyday speech?

By the 18th century, the 1ppl was lost, and by the end of the same century, so was the 2ppl. They survived longer in the imperatives, however. (Note of course that this is only talking about the standard language - there are dialects/varieties retaining these endings to this day)
In writing they were almost exclusively replaced by the 3ppl, but in the spoken language, iirc most people only used the 3ps already by the 1800-1850s. By the end of the 19th century, we see a substantial increase in published writers using only the 3ps, by ww2 the favor was changing in favor of 3ps forms only, and by the 60-70s plural forms were pretty much completely gone. Today many people don't even know of them, and it does happen that people tag on an old plural ending just to appear old fashioned.

[adder]

adder,
I am pretty sure you're wrong about the form "köpta", as well as about the timing of the changes - in press, the verb inflections did remain for a long while longer, but already by the interwar period they were falling by the wayside.

Oh, darn it! My bad. I have no idea why I put "t" there, it's "köpa" of course. It was supposed to be an infinitive... I'm changing it right away.

Also, I might be wrong. I can't really find the source.

[Aszev]

Also, I might be wrong. I can't really find the source. :(

Tbh I hope there isn't such a source to be found, because the 2ppl endings most certainly didn't remain into the 1970s in the standard language :)

[Skomakar'n]

Also, I might be wrong. I can't really find the source.

Tbh I hope there isn't such a source to be found, because the 2ppl endings most certainly didn't remain into the 1970s in the standard language

Would it even have been possible/plausible for any language to have done this kind of stuff this quickly? s:

[johanpeturdam]

"Navnið mítt" sounds quite comical in Faroese. And I don't think you'll hear anybody say it like this. The most common way to say it is "Mítt navn" or "Navnið hjá mær", although when actually telling somebody your name you wouldn't really use any of these, you'd use 'Eg eiti...'

Another note: The dropping of the h- in 'at eita' is NOT uniform. There are dialects in Suðuroy, which the retain the h-, but not in infinitive or present tense, so where the northern dialects have:

at eita - eitur - æt - itu - itið

the southern ones have:

at eita - eitur - hæt /he:t/ - hitu - hitið

Also, note here, that long æ is pronounced as /e:/ in Suðuroy.

Furthermore, the dialects of Suðuroy, maybe with the exception of the village of Sumba (< Sunnbøur, btw.), does not have 'eg', but 'jeg' /je:/.

But on the whole, very well done, Skomakar'n. If you have any doubts though, feel free to ask me about Faroese.

[Skomakar'n]

"Navnið mítt" sounds quite comical in Faroese. And I don't think you'll hear anybody say it like this. The most common way to say it is "Mítt navn" or "Navnið hjá mær", although when actually telling somebody your name you wouldn't really use any of these, you'd use 'Eg eiti...'

Another note: The dropping of the h- in 'at eita' is NOT uniform. There are dialects in Suðuroy, which the retain the h-, but not in infinitive or present tense, so where the northern dialects have:

at eita - eitur - æt - itu - itið

the southern ones have:

at eita - eitur - hæt /he:t/ - hitu - hitið

Also, note here, that long æ is pronounced as /e:/ in Suðuroy.

Furthermore, the dialects of Suðuroy, maybe with the exception of the village of Sumba (< Sunnbøur, btw.), does not have 'eg', but 'jeg' /je:/.

But on the whole, very well done, Skomakar'n. If you have any doubts though, feel free to ask me about Faroese.

Thank you very much! I did know about jeg and eg, but I don't know why I haven't mentioned this in my text. I'll edit it. I didn't know about the retention of the h- in places, though.

Would mítt navn really sound better than navnið mítt? From the Faroese I've seen on fora and so on (I'm a member of Kjak.org), the pattern with the definite form followed by the possessive seems more like the common one. Is it like a set phrase in this case, or have I just gotten it all wrong? 'X hjá DAT' I have seen fairly often, though.

[johanpeturdam]

Well, the definite noun + possessive pronoun is very rare in Faroese. I'd only use it jokingly in some sort of archaic way. For instance, giants in Faroese superstition usually say: "Fjørið mítt! Fjørið mítt!" (I have no idea what fjør means though, and the dictionary only calls it a calling made by giants (risar)).

Personally, I never use navnið mítt. It just... I don't know, I mean, it IS technically correct, but then you'd also have to say things like bilurin mín, konan mín, etc. but these are virtually never heard (and would probably be seen as icelandisms by most Faroese people, anyway). However, both navn mítt and mítt navn are common place, the only difference being which part of the sentence you want to stress (my NAME vs. MY name). On the other hand, you'll never go wrong with things like navnið hjá mær, bilurin hjá mær, konan hjá mær etc.

Example of stressing different things:

Navn mítt er Jógvan, men eg verði róptur Egga. = My name is Jógvan, but I'm called Egga.
Mítt navn er Jógvan, men hansara er Hanus. = My name is Jógvan, but his is Hanus.

And btw. you don't see the Suðuroy dialect in writing that much. I guess because few to none of them actually know, that these forms are actually codified.