1. The WordReference Forums have moved to new forum software. (Details)

Icelandic: hafa / hafa í

Discussion in 'Nordic Languages' started by Gavril, Dec 4, 2012.

  1. Gavril Senior Member

    English, USA
    Sæl,

    Sagnliðurinn hafa í virðist vera nokkuð algengur: hann er notaður í hafa í nógu að snúast (sem ég spurði um í síðasta þræði), hafa í erfiðleikum, og kannski í mörgum öðrum orðtökum. Hinsvegar er "hafa í" ekki að finna í Ordabok.is eða í Wisconsin-orðabókinni.

    Merkir "hafa í" svo til það sama og "hafa", eða er til mikilvægur greinarmunur?

    T.d. hæfa bæði "hafa" og "hafa í" jafnvel eftirfarandi setningunum?


    Ég hafði (í) drauma/draumum um þig í gærkvöld.

    Ég hef (í) peninga/um í vösum mínum.

    Hann hafði (í) vandamál(um) í bílprófinu.


    Takk!
     
  2. Alxmrphi Senior Member

    Reykjavík, Ísland
    UK English
    Áður en við förum að spjalla um þetta verðum við að breyta setningunum þínum af því að mér virðist þú hafa gleymt nokkrum smáatriðum um eign: t.d. eiga peninga / (eiga) vera með vandamál. Þar að auki er fyrsta dæmin bara bókstafleg þýðing úr ensku og yfir á íslensku ímynda ég að það væri betra að segja: mig dreymdi (um) þig í nótt.

    Þegar sögnin hafa snýst ekki um eign þá getur maður notað forsetningarliður til að tjá „a state“ (eins og 'being in difficulty' / 'having a lot to do' :)cross:eek:wning a lot to do)). Ég myndi ekki segja að hafa í sé orðliður sjálfur heldur [hafa] [í .... ] þar sem annar partur er forsetningarliður.... það er eins og að segja "to have in mind" -> "to have in" + "mind" þegar í raun og veru er þetta "to have" + "in mind".

    Það er algengara að segja eiga í erfiðleikum og þetta sýnir að það er ekki tengt orðinu hafa - bara forsetningarliðnum sjálfum: -> [eiga] [í erfiðleikum].
    Það er út af þessu að þér tókst ekki að finna þetta í orðabókum.


    If you associate these PPs as unique to themselves and moveable, representative of a state or something slightly different from the absolute literal meaning then it really helps to sort of see how the cogs work in the machine, if you get what I mean. It works for me anyway so I hope it does for you! :)
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2012
  3. Gavril Senior Member

    English, USA


    Takk fyrir að minna mig á eiga í -- ég leitaði þess á ordabok.is, og það er skilgreint sem "to experience". Mér virðist þó að (a.m.k. í nútímaíslensku) sögnin eiga og forsetningin í eru tengdar í þessu tilviki, þ.e.a.s. "eiga í" er sérstakur sagnliður, "meiri en summan af hlutum sínum".

    Er nú hægt að gera ráð fyrir því að hafa í merki það sama og "eiga í", þó það vantar "hafa í" í orðabókina?
     
  4. Alxmrphi Senior Member

    Reykjavík, Ísland
    UK English
    Ég er ósammála þessu. Þau eru ekki meira tengd en þau voru í fyrstu dæmi.
    Eins og ég sagði: þetta þýðir „being in a state of <X>“ og þess vegna er mögulegt að segja „experience“.

    Þetta þýðir ekki [eiga í] sjálfur þýðir experience - það þýðir að það er algengt að nota <í .... > með þessa sögn og þá er líka hægt að nota experience til að tjá nákvæmlega það sama:

    eiga í: experience (eiga í vandræðum: experience problems), have (eiga í vandræðum: have problems);


    [í erfiðleikum]

    hafa + [í erfiðleikum]
    eiga + [í erfiðleikum]

    hafa + [í erfiðleikum] = have / experience difficulties
    eiga + [í erfiðleikum] = have / experience difficulties

    You would translate the eiga í part as being 'experience/have' but that's squeezing Icelandic into a paradigm of English. It's not independent or part of the same unit in Icelandic. The fact that you use the same thing across different verbs quite clearly shows that. I wouldn't think of it as being greater than the sum of its parts or idiomatic or phrasal or anything like that because that just sets you up to be confused in the future because it's not actually the case.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2012
  5. Gavril Senior Member

    English, USA
    Hvað meinar þú með fyrsta dæmi?

    Það gæti vel verið, að "to be in a state of" sé nákvæmari þýðing á eiga í en "to experience". Það merkir þó ekki að "eiga í" sé ekki sérstakur sagnliður. Ef það er ekki svo, hvernig er þá hægt að giska á merkingu sagnliðsins "eiga í" með venjulegum skilgreiningunum orðanna "eiga" og "í"?

    Do you mean the fact that you can say eiga í and hafa í? But since eiga and hafa are synonymous in so many contexts, it's not surprising that they would be used to create similar phrasal verbs. Where else (i.e., with what other verbs) does the word "í" function analogously to the way it does in eiga/hafa í?

    At this point, I'm a lot more confused by not thinking of it this way. :)
     
  6. Alxmrphi Senior Member

    Reykjavík, Ísland
    UK English
    < Apologies for English but I'd be unable to express exactly what I want to say in Icelandic >
    I meant the example with 'hafa í' in the other post - should have referenced that, sorry.
    Well, it's really how you look at it. I suppose if you treat it as 'When í comes after eiga and then there is a dative noun then you're talking about experiencing something' but I don't think that qualifies for saying eiga í is a phrasal unit.

    Okay, this might be useful. If you can see that this í + dat unit functions productively elsewhere, then it might be more indicative to not see í as being phrasally part of specifically two verbs.

    [Lenda] + [í erfiðleikum]
    [Vera] + [í erfiðleikum]
    [Leita] + [í erfiðleikum]

    And here are some other real examples of usage. These clearly show that
    í erfiðleikum is its own unit and the í is not phrasally attached to hafa/eiga.

    Same story for í vandræðum ...

    It's just like:

    To be in difficulty....
    To be in trouble...

    It might not translate well (most things don't) but this is what's going on in the Icelandic.
    Supporting the hypothesis that eiga í is a unit then you'd have to explain away all sorts of other possibilities where the meaning is not experience like eiga í viðskipti við - to experience business with?:thumbsdown:

    Hope that argues the case well! :D
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2012
  7. Gavril Senior Member

    English, USA
    I'm coming to think that the phrasal unit is eiga/hafa í erfiðleikum rather than any isolated part of this.



    You may be right that í erfiðleikum is a unit on its own, but I think vera/lenda í erfiðleikum are problematic as evidence because we already have the more general constructions vera í e-u and lenda í e-u. What does leita í erfiðleikum mean?

    Let me know if I've translated these phrases correctly:

    "The couple described their role with difficulty and dejection, so that ..."

    "Phonological problems arise, for example, in difficulties with sound alternations."

    "A problem with phonological awareness is seen in difficulties with pronouncing letters aloud."


    "They need other people in times of hardship and they receive
    [?] [why subjunctive?] no help."

    If my translations are correct, then in all of these examples "í erfiðleikum" is functioning like an adjunct prepositional phrase (hopefully I'm using "adjunct" correctly here): in other words, it doesn't affect the complement (direct object, etc.) taken by the verb itself.

    By contrast, in the case of hafa/eiga í erfiðleikum, the verbs, which are normally transitive, appear without a direct object, and the prepositional phrase í erfiðleikum seems to be functioning as a complement.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2012
  8. Alxmrphi Senior Member

    Reykjavík, Ísland
    UK English
    If that distinction works for you then I think you should go with it because if you can arrive at the intended meaning and reproduce it freely, then you've learnt how to use it and at the end of the day that's what matters. I don't think it needs anywhere near as complicated an analysis as that but sometimes for some people that works (it has done for me in some different respects so I totally get that).

    I just wanted to steer you away from relying on English translations to lead you to hypothesise on what was grouped together. Once you can accept without recourse to English what 'eiga í erfiðleikum' means and you know what it expresses, that's fine. For me, there is no reason why what you can use as an adjunct somewhere else can't be paired up next to a canonically transitive verb. Basically it's just nitpicking and not important to understanding the phrase in question so I think it's wise to not go further.

    I would just point to instances where you have intervening parts to back up the claim of their syntactic independence:

    Noticing how ekki is placed in the last example, a normal identifier of syntactic constituency. If 'eiga í' was a unit we'd expect 'eiga í ekki + dat' and we don't get that.
    You do see examples where you get elements intervening between the preposition and the noun but these all relate to strictly qualitative types of 'difficulty' and fit in well as an attributer, unlike the examples in the quote before which are well-known to not be able to break into tight syntactic boundaries.

    Accepting that the equivalent to 'have in difficulty with' is purely grammatical just solves the problem for me. I wouldn't want to take over baggage from English to try to make it seem that there is something particularly weird about it just because it's not something we'd say.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2012

Share This Page