The impersonal verb in Old Icelandic

49.
/
Brerillu-Njals saga:
. . at rauoan kyrtil bar vic, gluggiml111 ... .. (pe88, 1 .. 31)
IIBarll is impersonal since IIrauoan k;yr-til", the action focus,
is accusative by its form.
Li terally the clause is II that
it bore the red tunic against (in contrast with, i.ee in
front of) the window" II ill t ll here app ears to be jf chancel! ..
CLJ-l.SS V (e): Impersonal with a preposi tional phrase and 8.11
indirect O-b ject ..
.. • sem honum var ... Ilsk tilprindi ••• (p.13, 1 .. 289)
Compare p.13, 1.281 " ... er harm praut prindi t .... 11
Class II(d).
This time the lI.¢rindi t!1 is in a phrase insteact of an o-blique
case.
This comparison illustrates the sLnilarity of function
of the two.
It is noteworthy also that for "him" the
accusative ilham1if has become the dative "hom':Y!lif according as
the different verb is constructed with its object( s) •
Hrafnkels saga:
Honum var vant nrer viku. (p .62, 1 .. 108)
Cf. p.62, 1.106; II. en p~ var vant mer premr tigu..'11 {sauoar
/
eina nott!!. Class V..
The genitive that !IvaI' vantil usually
takes is, despite its function as the focus of the action,
the object of this verb ..
But here this 6bject is not expressed
(al though it i::;· implici t). So the focus must -be ilhonum il ,
a
dative.
The nearest English renCierL'l.g CaTl" .. L'lot leave out what
was missing as the Icelandic can: dEe hac~ them mi ssing nearly