ÞINN

(þin, þitt), poss. pron. thy, thine; þinn heljar-karl, thou hell-carle!; hundrinn þinn, thou dog!.

* * *

þín, þitt, possess. pron.; older and better þínn, þín, þítt, see minn: [Goth. þeins; Engl. thine; Germ. dein; Dan. din]:—thine, thy; þínum drengskap, Nj. 16; dóttur þinnar, 23; þinnar íllsku, 82; föður þíns, 108; fá mér leppa tvá ór hári þínu, 116, and passim.

B. There was also a different use of ‘þinn’ in the vocat., viz. in addressing a person generally in connexion with some word of abuse; þinn heljar-karl, thou hell-carle! Fb. i. 212; þitt íllmenni! Fs. 36; þinn skelmir! 166; also placed after the noun, even with the suffixed article, hefir þú svikit mik, hundrinn þinn! Ísl. ii. 176; mun fóli þinn nokkurum manni grið gefa? Ld. 220; dyðrillinn þinn, Fms. ii. 279; klifar þú nökkvat jafnan mannfýla þin! Nj. 85; hirð eigi þú þat, milki þinn, thou milksop! 182; alldjarfr er þjófrinn þinn, Fms. vii. 127; hvat vill skelmir þinn? Fs. 52; hvat mun þjófr þinn vita til þess? Eb. 106; lydda þin, Krók. 7: also freq. in mod. Dan., Norse, and Swed., e. g. Dan. din hund! din skjelm! dit afskum! ☞ In Norway, even in a sense of compassion, nú frys du í hel, ditt vesle ting! gakk heim-atter, din krok = thou, poor fellow! but more freq. as abuse, di sugga! ditt naut! ditt stygge fæ! or it is even there extended to the first person, eg, min arming, I, poor thing! me, vaarc stakarar = we, poor fellows! eg viste inkje bettra, min daare ! Ivar Aasen’s Norse Gramm. p. 332.

2. in cases other than the vocative, but much more rarely; viltú nú þiggja grið? þá svarar jarl, eigi af hundinum þínum, not from thee, thou dog! Fms. vi. 323; af fretkarli þínum, Fs. 160: acc., er ek sé þik, frænda skömm þína …, er ek ól þinn úvita, Krók. 7 new Ed.; skulu vér færa þinn úvin til heljar, Fms. vi. 212.

3. in old writers even in plur., but very rarely; hví róa. djöflar yðrir (ye devils!), fyrir oss í alla nótt, Fms. ix. 50.—We believe this ‘þinn,’ as a vocative, to be not the possess. pron. but a compounded form of the pers. pron. ‘þú’ and the article ‘inn,’ þinn being qs. þ’inn, literally thou the …! A strong, and almost conclusive, proof of this is that the uncontracted form actually occurs, and is used in exactly the same sense as the contracted ‘þinn;’ þú inn vándi slangi, thou the wicked scamp! Skíða R.; þú inn armi, thou the wretch! Ld. 326; þú inn mikli maðr, thou the great man! Eg. 488; vel, þú hinn góði þjón og trúlyndi, Matth. xxv. 21: the full phrase was accordingly altered in one of two ways; either the article was dropped, þú góði og t. þjón, 20, or pronoun and particle were both contracted into one word, as above. The phrase, we may presume, at first could only have been used in the vocative (þinn!); but the origin being soon lost sight of, it was gradually extended to other cases (hundinum þínum); and even, esp. in mod. usage, to the other possessive pronouns (djöflar yðrir). Bearing this in mind, it is easy to understand why this usage is peculiar to the Scandinavian tongue, for although the possessive pronoun ‘þinn,’ thine, etc., is common to all Teutonic languages, the article ‘inn’ is peculiar to the northern languages, and therefore a word compounded with it would be so also. Analogous are the phrases, sá inn, þat it, þau in, þann inn …, see p. 263, col. 1 (A. II). For another view, see Grimm, Kleine Schr. iii. 256, and 271 sqq.