Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.1991, Side 105

Beygingarsamrœmi með samsettu frumlagi
103
SE = Edda Snorra Sturlusonar. Guðni Jónsson bjó til prentunar. íslendingasagnaút-
gáfan, Reykjavík, 1954.
Stefán Einarsson. 1949. Icelandic. Grammar. Texts. Glossary. The John Hopkins Press,
Baltimore.
SUMMARY
In Ieelandic finite verbs agree with nominative arguments (usually subjects) in
Person (1, 2, 3) and number (sg., pl.), and adjectival predicates and past participles
aSree in case, number and gender (m, f, n). Complications arise, however, if the subject
ls a coordinated one: in certain such cases some speakers prefer number and gender
a8reement with only one of the subject conjuncts, while other speakers either accept
°r prefer agreement with the conjoined subject as a whole. In this article an attempt is
made to explain this variation, primarily in terms of semantic features.
Agreement with conjoined nominative subjects seems to be based upon two rather
different strategies. In the first place, agreement can depend on one of the subject
c°njuncts, normally the one that is closest to the finite verb. Secondly, a conjoined
subject can be treated as a whole; each part is added to the other(s), and plural agreement
ls required. For convenience, the first approach will be referred to as ‘separative’ and
lhe second as ‘additive’. The choice between these approaches seems to be crucially
controlled by certain semantic features, namely, ‘countability’ and ‘concreteness’.
If both or all conjuncts of a conjoined nominative subject are concrete and countable,
only the additive approach is normally available:
(1) Strákurinn(m.sg.) og stelpan(f.sg.) er«(pl.) veii(n.pl.)
(2) Blýanturinn(m.sg) og yddarinn (m.sg.) eru(pl.) týndir(m.p\.)
In contrast, if a conjoined subject has one or more abstract, uncountable conjuncts,
^here is speaker variation in Modem Icelandic as to whether the separative approach
(3a) or the additive approach (3b) is preferred:
(3) a Eftirvæntingin(f.sg.) og áhuginn(m.sg.) var(sg.) mikill(m.sg.)
b Eftirvæntingin og áhuginn vor«(pl.) mikil(n.pl.)
Old Icelandic examples with abstract, conjoined (nominative) subjects show only
separative approach, and, all examples of the additive approach in clauses with such
subjects are in fact from this century. It thus seems that a change in agreement with
shstract, conjoined (nominative) subjects is in progress. Some speakers still adhere to
(he older separative approach while others accept or prefer the additive approach.
Heimspekideild Háskóla íslands
Arnagarði við Suðurgötu
iOl Reykjavík