Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.1979, Side 158

138
Jón Friðjónsson
SUMMARY
In modern Icelandic there is vacillation in the choice of case taken by the noun
in relative phrases which refer back to a possessive construction in the main clause;
this can often lead to ambiguity. This ambiguity arises from the forms of con-
structions containing possessive adjectives or pronouns in the 3rd person, where
either real (reflexive) possessive adjectives or unreal (genitives of 3rd person pro-
nouns) are used, depending whether the subject and the possessor are identical or
not. To illustrate this, the following examples are given:
A) Hann taldi það skyldu sína sem lceknir (læknis) (Al)
(He considered it his duty as a doctor) (He = his)
B) Hann taldi það skyldu hans sem lœknis (læknir) (Bl)
(He considered it his duty as a doctor) (He = / = his)
C) Ég taldi það skyldu mína sem lœknir (læknis) (Cl)
(I considered it my duty as a doctor)
By virtue of its form example A is non-ambiguous, i.e. the relative phrase can
only refer to the subject (hann). Similarly example B is non-ambiguous, the rela-
tive phrase in this case referring (by case concord) to the possessive, which accor-
ding to formal grammar should not refer to the subject (hann), being not reflexive.
In modern Icelandic, however, sentence A may be constructed by analogy to
sentence B using the genitive instead of the nominative, as shown in parentheses
(Al), and „vice versa“ (Bl); i.e. the case form is no longer decisive in distinguish-
ing semantically between examples A and B. This pattern has been taken up —
to a certain degree — in sentences referring to the lst and 2nd persons (Cl). There
is thus a degree of uncertainty in the choice of the appropriate case form in such
relative phrases, which refer back to a possessive construction. This tendency is
aggravated by a number of things. In the first place the distribution af real/unreal
possessive pronouns is rather inconsistent in Icelandic (5.1), and this can lead to
uncertainty as to the referent. For instance sentence B above is sometimes sub-
stituted for sequence A, without any change in meaning. Secondly subjectless sen-
tences are rather common in Icelandic and in such cases the only overt referent
would be the possessive construction itself (for examples see 5.1). Finally, ex-
amples where the choice of case form in a relative phrase is semantically relevant
are not common, to judge from the material examined (4.0).
Of 22 examples containing real possessive pronouns in the main clause, the
genitive form was found in 7 cases (Al) in the relative phrase, but the nominative
in 15 (A), i.e. the nominative is clearly favoured, especially if the reference is to
the lst or 2nd person (C). If on the other hand the main clause contains unreal
possessive pronouns (genitives), the situation becomes different. Here the nomina-
tive was used in the relative phrase in 17 instances (Bl), but the genitive in 21 (B),
reflecting a general uncertainty in constructions of this type.