Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 13.07.1981, Page 72

68
M. P. Barnes
‘work on behalf of’ and ‘work to further’, ‘work to achieve’ is not
always clearly perceived. In (211) and (215) there is not much scope
for confusion. But consider:
(217) Til síðst skal tað ynski framsetast .. . at Danskarar og F0r-
ingar hond í hond mugu arbeiða fyri hvprja sak, sum kann
ætlast at verða F0rjalandi og F0rjafólki til frama
(218) Grainir um F0rja s0gu og um menn, sum hava virka firi F0rjar
In both these examples the fyri phrase seems most likely to be Pur-
posive and we would expect the dative. Further examples of vacillation
arising from blurred semantic distinctions are: (160) vs.
(219) Treytirnar, ið vóru álagdar fyri torvskurðin, vóru . . .
(220) Honum á baki fór formaðurin fyri sambandsflokkinum vs.
(221) Áðrenn avgerðin varð tikin, hevði formaðurin fyri sjálvstýris-
flokkin mælt til, at . . .
In (219) the word álagdar, which might be loosely interpreted as gald-
andi, may have caused the writer to think of fyri in this sentence as
having Delimiting function; the Obstructed phrase in (160) represents
normal usage. Unless (220) vs. (221), which are from the same article,
indicate that the author felt there were different standards of democracy
in Sambandsflokkurin and Sjálvstýrisflokkurin, we have to assume that
he was not clear in his mind about the distinction between leading
(Locational) and representing (Substitutive).
Failure to use the normal case after fyri can arise for other reasons.
The accusative often replaces the dative when fyri is not immediately
followed by the noun phrase it governs. This is especially true when the
noun phrase takes first position in the clause. Eg:
(222) Hetta hevur Fpringafelag havt eyguni opin fyri (contrast 4.1,
p. 55)
(223) tað manst tú ikki óttast fyri (contrast 4.8)
Sometimes we seem to be dealing with an elliptical phrase. Eg:
(224) tá tú ikki er f0rur fyri tað lítla, enn minni manst tú tá tíma at
fáast við tað stóra (i.e., f0rur fyri at fáast við)
Occasionally the dative -i ending may be omitted.11 Eg:
n On this question and on whether such forms should be taken as accusative
or dative see Barnes (1977:79).