Orð og tunga - 01.06.2011, Blaðsíða 152

142
Orð og tunga
Lykilorð
íslensk málsaga, beygingarfræði, áhrifsbreytingar, ömefni
Keywords
history of the Icelandic language, morphology, analogy, place names
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to clarify forms like the place name Brúar, our only liv-
ing witness to the old plural of the word brú. Other plural formations, such as brúr
and brýr are dealt with as well. Our sources for these forms are widely distributed in
space and time, and though a diachronical aspect is never absent, the form in ques-
tion is investigated from a synchronistic standpoint.
The main conclusions of this paper are as follows:
(1) a. Even though the plural form brúar no longer functions as plural
of the common noun brú, the form Brúar is quite natural in the
function it serves. This can readily be explained in the light of
the theory that if a form has received a new inflectional form, this
new form takes on the word's primary function as default form
for the common noun. The earlier form may survive exercising a
secondary function. The place name, here the name of a farm, is a
natural candidate for that function. Its function is marked, given
that its scope of use is more narrowly circumscribed.
b. In Icelandic, the dative may, inter alia, indicate movement or rest at
a location. The form Brúum is an archaic-looking dat. pl. form of a
radical noun ending in (-)V:tt.
Such a dat. form could never coexist in a paradigm of feminine nouns with a mono-
syllabic nom. pl. form. In the same way, a monosyllabic dat. form like brúm is almost
exclusively confined to feminine nouns. All these particularities are discussed in the
context of the assumption that the dative is, indeed, the unmarked case of nouns
indicating place; and thus a case likely to preserve more archaical forms than other
cases or the corresponding common nouns.
c. The plural forms brúr and brýr both have formal parallels in the
system of feminine noun declension.
The interrelations between these phenomena are dealt with in a further discussion
of how word forms influence each other and the effect that grammatical function
may have on the preservation of forms. The dative is our focus; precisely in the da-
tive forms we may find answers to many of the questions that present themselves.
Analogical change has its roots in a relation of structural parallelism, a presence of
similarity. This is the guiding thought throughout the rest of this paper. Meaning
and function are seen to be decisive. It matters, for instance, whether we are dealing
with a place name or a common noun. This is addressed in the light of theories such