Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.2002, Blaðsíða 62

60
Joan Maling
em dative (cf. Stefán Einarsson 1945:107 (section I,3,l-2(a)), Kress
1982, §525). Hence it is tempting to try to find semantic generaliza-
tions that could account for the selection of dative over accusative
objects. That is the purpose of this section and we will begin with the
prototypical class.
4.2 Verbs ofhelping
In (47) I have listed several verbs of helping that take dative objects:
(47) bjarga ‘rescue’, hjálpa ‘help\forba ‘save (from)’, gagna ‘help’,
gagnast ‘be of use’, hjúkra ‘nurse’, liðsinna ‘assist’, líkna ‘care
for’, redda ‘save’, sinna ‘attend to’, þjóna ‘serve’
Here I have included verbs of rescue (bjarga, forða) in the semantic
class of helping. But although this is arguably the prototypical class of
verbs taking dative objects, there are some very common exceptions
to this generalization, i.e. verbs with similar meanings which nonethe-
less take accusative objects. Consider the following (cf. also the dis-
cussion in section 1):
(48) taking a dative object: taking an accusative object:
liðsinna ‘assist’ vs. aðstoða ‘assist’
hjúkra ‘nurse’ vs. lœkna ‘heal’
hjálpa ‘help’ vs. styrkja ‘support’
If the semantic class of helping is extended to include objects
which are in some sense beneficiaries, then we might add verbs like
these, which all take dative objects:
(49) eira ‘show mercy’, hlífa ‘protect’, miskunna ‘take pity on’ vœgja
‘ spare ’, þyrma ‘ spare ’
bía ‘lull (a baby)’, hossa ‘lull (a baby)’, vagga ‘lull (a baby)’17
But here, too, it is possible to find exceptions and come up with near-
minimal pairs like these:
17 The various verbs of lulling babies into sleep could also be related to the verbs
whose objects undergo movement (cf. section 4.5).