Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.2002, Side 219

„ Og komu þó fleiri en boðnir voru “
217
Gunnlaugur Ingólfsson og Jón Aðalsteinn Jónsson rituðu inngang. Lögberg,
Reykjavík, 1988. [Fyrst útg. íHróarskeldu 1540.]
Stj = Stjorn. Gammelnorsk Bibelhistorie fra Verdens Skabelse til det babyloniske
Fangenskab. Útg. C. R. Unger. Osló. [Kristiania.]
Við = Biblía, það er Heil0g Ritning ... Viðey, 1841. [Viðeyjarbiblía.]
ÞjóðsJÞork = Þjóðsögur og munnmœli. Útg. Jón Þorkelsson. Bókfellsútgáfan, Reykja-
vrk, 1956.
SUMMARY
‘And More Came than Were Invited’
Keywords: historical linguistics, passive, participle, adjective, case marking, agreement
This paper compares constructions like Þeim var boðið ‘They(D) were invited (lit.
>.Them was invited") and Þeir voru boðnir ‘They(N) were invited’. The difference
between the two constructions is briefly reviewed and the main points are the follow-
*ng: Verbs like bjóða ‘invite’ in Icelandic take a dative object and a dative subject in
the passive (Einhver bauð þeim ‘Someone invited them(D)’ > Þeim var boðið
'They(D) were invited’). In this sense the dative case is „preserved" in the passive. In
such instances the participle shows up in the default n.sg. form (i.e. boðið) and does
not agree with the subject, nor does the finite auxiliary var ‘was’, since non-nomina-
tive subjects never trigger agreement of that kind. Despite this, one can also have
constructions like Þeir voru boðnir where the subject is in the nominative and the form
boðnir looks like an agreeing past participle (m.pl., agreeing with the pronominal sub-
ject þeir ‘they(m.pl.)’) of the verb bjóða. But while the frrst form (var boðið) has a ver-
bal (passive) reading, the second one has a stative adjectival reading. Consequently it
has been argued that in such instances the form boðnir is really an adjective (derived
from the same root as the verb bjóða) and not a true participial form of the verb.
ffespite this, it has sometimes been claimed that constructions like Þeir voru boðnir
(with the nominative subject and the agreeing form boðnir) cannot really be correct
Icelandic since here we should have a dative subject and a non-agreeing form. But it
's shown in the present paper that this construction can already be found in sources
frotn the 14th century (still older examples can be found with forms derived from other
verbs that take dative objects in the active), although the true passive (with the dative
subject and a non-agreeing form) appears to go all the way back to the earliest written
sources of Icelandic (12th century manuscripts). The conclusion is that there are no lin-
guistic grounds to claim that only one of the versions is the correct one.
Jýn G. Friðjónsson
þlenskuskor Háskóla íslands
ðrnagarði v. Suðurgötu
Is-101 Reykjavík, ÍSLAND
í°nf@hi.is