Fróðskaparrit - 01.01.1987, Side 41

THE FAROESE AUXILIARY VERB MUNNA
45
indicate the future, it seems for the most
part to function much like the Norwegian
modal adverbs nok, sikkert (in interroga-
tive clauses: mon (tro)), i.e., the principal
semantic feature it lends to the clause in
which it stands is doubt. In declarative
clauses a note of uncertainty is introduced
into the speaker’s or writer’s attitude to
what he is affirming or denying. In positive
questions doubt is expressed about what is
predicated of the subject, while in negative
questions the doubt applies to the negation
itself and the speaker or writer thus in-
dicates his belief in the correctness of what
is predicated of the subject. Depending on
the context, munna may appear with full or
weakened semantic content. Occasionally
it is semantically empty and functions
merely as an expletive particle.
Further examination of Lockwood’s ex-
amples, and the addition of others will help
to show the kind of contexts in which
munna may be used and with what effect.
Most statements presented as factual by
a speaker can be altered to an expression of
opinion by the addition of the appropriate
form of munna. Thus, a speaker who says:
(5) Tað er so ’lt is so’
affirms that that is indeed the way ’it’ is or
’things’ are. If man is added, as in Lock-
wood’s first example, the statement be-
comes one of personal opinion, and the
certainty of (5) is removed. It is often satis-
factory when rendering man, munnu,
mundi, mundu + infinitive into English to
turn the infinitive into a finite form in the
same tense as the auxiliary and to add ’I
suppose’, as Lockwood does in a couple of
his English translations. If the other de-
clarative examples of munna + infinitive
Lockwood gives are examined, it will be
found that they confirm this analysis. Thus:
(6) Hann man ætla sær at velta nógv í ár
as a statement of opinion contrasts with the
factual:
(7) Hann ætlar sær at velta nógv í ár
’He intends for himself (i.e., he
intends) to cultivate much this year’
Matters are slightly more complex in the
next two examples. The matrix verb hugsa
’think’ and the adverb óivað ’doubtless’
convey varying degrees of uncertainty
themselves, and whereas óivað only intro-
duces slight doubt, it is arguable that where
munna is embedded under a verb meaning
’think, believe’ it is semantically more or
less redundant. In the particular example:
(8) Eg hugsi, at teir munnu fara at koma
aftur skjótt
it is also redundant as a tense marker, since
tense is here supplied by fara at ’be going
to, will’. Something of the flavour of (8)
can perhaps be conveyed if we translate it:
T think they’re most likely going to come
back soon.’ And if ’I would think’ is substi-
tuted for ’I suppose’, (1) repeated as:
(9) Tað man óivað vera beinari
will come out fairly naturally as: ’That is
doubtless more correct, I would think.’
Lockwood’s three examples of mundi +
infinitive in declarative clauses do not de-
viate from this pattern, though once again