Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.1980, Blaðsíða 204

202
Janez Oresnik
ferð type, from the former half of the nineteenth century (see §1.1
above), shows that the clipping rule must have begun to spread to dis-
syllabic long forms in -ðu around 1800 at the latest.
Why did the ferð type come into being later than the lest type? 1
think because lest requires the formulation, „delete the u of tu“,
whereas ferð requires the generalised formulation, „delete the u of
dental + u.“ The process of generalising (simplifying) a rule tends to
take some time, as such pertinent examples as described in the literature
testify. (See, e.g., Höskuldur Thráinsson 1980.) This has obviously also
been the case with the clipping rule, and has caused the time difference
that separates the earliest occurrence of the lest type from that of the
ferð type.
1.4
I now continue with a comparison of the fate, in the informal lan-
guage, of the clipped imperatives and of the clipped indicatives. Why
has the long imperative scored such success in the informal language,
whereas the long indicative could not prevail over the clipped indica-
tive? Answer: The functional difference between the variants of the
imperative was essentially less than the functional difference between
the variants of the indicative. With one exception (the use with emphatic
þú) the difference between the variants of the imperative was stylistic
at most. On the other hand, the difference between the variants of the
indicative is first of all grammatical: lestu is used with inversion, e.g. in
interrogative sentences, lest elsewhere.11 This accounts for the differ-
ence in treatment alluded to in the above question. When the short
indicative les was joined by the clipped indicative lest, between which
there was at most a stylistic difference, one of them, viz. les, disappeared
entirely, as expected on the basis of the similar situation in the impera-
tive. If the indicative forms les(t) and lestu were stylistic variants at
most, I predict that lest(t) would be on the way out of the language
under the pressure from lestu.
Let us compare the fate of the clipped imperative with the fate of
the clipped indicative in the modern formal language: the clipped im-
perative could not penetrate the formal language (barring vert, cf.
II More precisely, Þú lest margar bœkur, Lestu margar bœkur? and Lest þú
margar btekur? are acceptable sentences, whereas Þú lestu margar bcekur is not.