Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 13.07.1981, Page 68

64
M. P. Barnes
under 3.8 (Delimiting). I can think of two possible reasons why we find
the dative after fyri here: (a) confusion with other fyri + dat. categories
(especially the Preparative, cf. (153) and expressions such as m<þgu-
leikar, útlit fyri e-m ‘possibilities, prospects for (i.e. facing) someone’),
(b) in the case of (199) the contrastive function of the dative: vandi fyri
+ acc. means ‘danger for’ (Affected, cf. 3.7).
4.11 Summary of the fyri + dat. phrases
I think it is possible to see a common semantic thread running through
all the fyri + dat. categories except the Connective: the notion of two
things in a fixed position, the one in front of the other. Historically this
doubtless also applies to at least some of the Connectives as well (ráða
fyri, for example, is not far removed from standa fyri, cf. 4.1). I have
already hinted at this interpretation in my discussion of several of the
individual categories. Here I will simply draw the strands together. In
the Locational phrases fyri plainly denotes ‘position in front of’ either
literally or figuratively, and this is also the crucial factor that enables us
to distinguish a Presence category. The two Time categories are made
up of examples in which fyri + dat. denotes ‘position in time before’.
Fyri tveimum árum síðani, for example, can be understood as meaning:
‘before the last two years which have elapsed measured from a given
point in time’. The Preparatives indicate ‘readiness for’, that one thing
is before another in space and/or time. In the Obstructed and Obstruc-
tive categories we have a single basic notion, but seen from opposite
viewpoints: either ‘obstruction in front of someone/something’ or
‘someone/something facing obstruction’. The basic sense of the Re-
actives is also ‘(when) faced by’, but here the fyri phrases combine with
words like ansur, áhugi, stúra, rœðast etc. Finally, in the Purposive cate-
gory fyri + dat. can be seen as a goal which the Agent faces. Whether
the principal distinction between fyri + dat. and fyri + acc. is best
seen as locational vs. motion or locational vs. “other meanings” I am
not yet quite sure, since I do not find my arguments in favour of motion
interpretation of certain of the accusative categories entirely convincing,
and there are a number where no such interpretation is possible. Indeed,
the accusative Time category (3.9) ought, if things were consistent, to
be a dative category. But in language, as in life and the works of certain
scholars, things are not always consistent, and this is something I am
afraid we have to put up with.