Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.2021, Qupperneq 162

between the singular *klǣþ and the plural *klāþar ‘clothes’. This must have led to
the generalization of /ā/ as the noun was frequently used in the plural; compare
the Proto-Germanic endings of back vowels: nom. pl. (M.) *-ōzes, etc. (for detail,
see Hofmann 1995). Therefore, there are good grounds on which to assume that
Old Frisian is the donor language in this particular case. This is to show that the
reliance on etymological dictionaries may lead to a superficial assessment of sin-
gle items.
Let us turn to the etymological discussion of Old Icelandic word formation
in the light of comparative philology. This information seems rather short and
at times cursory as compared to the lengthy notes on Greek and Latin etymolo-
gies. For instance, the Old Icelandic extended suffixes -nað- (masc.) and -ning-
(masc./fem.) are directly explained as re-interpretations of the suffixes -að- and
-ing- mainly on the basis of na-verbs such as hagna ‘be successful’ → hagnaðr
‘advantage, profit’ (cf. OI metnaðr ‘esteem’ ← OI metna). Based on standard wis-
dom (e.g., Kluge 1899, §§ 134–136), Matteo concludes that “[i]t appears far like-
lier that OIcel. metnaðr/metnuðr was derived from the verb meta and that metna
is instead a back formation.” Whether this is right or not, I think it is important
to see that this type of reanalysis has a broader set of forces at work than the stan-
dard notion of analogy would suggest (see in particular Fertig 2013). A reference
to Torp’s Gamalnorsk ordavleiding (which is absent from the “Secondary Litera -
ture”) would have shown that this pattern of reanalysis has at least two anchors
in the early period of Old Norse/Old Icelandic (Torp 1974:31):
1. the frequent na-verbs mentioned by Matteo, e.g., batnaðr (batna), fagn -
aðr (fagna), saknaðr (sakna);
2. past participles and adjectives in -inn which form a large group and are
highly frequent as well: búnaðr (búinn), dulnaðr (dulinn), getnaðr (getinn),
trúnaðr (trúinn), etc.
It is extremely difficult to pinpoint the exact source of OI metnaðr and other such
formations. In general, there is a strong morphological basis for this type of ana-
logical process; cf. in principle Durkin (2009, § 7.4.3) on “Reanalysis followed by
analogous formations”. This also applies to the assessment of ning-formations in
relation to those in ing, e.g., ritning (p. 41), brugðning (p. 99–100), sundurskorning
(p. 100) and fyrirsetning (p. 104).
An example where the Norse form could have been scrutinized more closely
is the īn-stem kristni (pp. 16–17). Matteo notes that “[i]t is unclear whether such
a derivational path [of īn-derivation; M.S.] was productive”. Again Torp (1974)
offers a long list of examples, both native and in many cases ancient formations
(birti, herði, gremi, frǿði, hylli, etc.) and some younger loans (e.g. prýði, kurteisi).
To judge from the abundance of īn-stem material, this suffix must have been very
productive in an early phase of Old Icelandic and probably in Ancient Nordic. In
all likelihood some of these nouns belong to an early stratum of Old Icelandic and
Michael Schulte162