Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [norse_course] Laxdaela Saga 37 part 3 - Rob's Translation

Expand Messages
  • Brian M. Scott
    At 6:26:59 AM on Saturday, July 16, 2011, Alan Thompson ... That s pretty much how I read it, too. ... My guess is that they re explaining the usage in this
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 25, 2011
      At 6:26:59 AM on Saturday, July 16, 2011, Alan Thompson

      > Thanks Brian. One follow up comment below…

      > From: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:norse_course@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian M. Scott
      > Sent: Saturday, 16 July 2011 5:24 PM
      > To: rob13567
      > Subject: Re: [norse_course] Laxdaela Saga 37 part 3 - Rob's Translation

      >> Þóttist hann glöggt skilja að hann mundi hafa borið af
      >> Eldgrími ef þeir hefðu reynt með sér svo lítið sem fyrir
      >> hann lagðist.

      >> He bethought-himself clearly to discern (skilja, Z5) that
      >> he would have disposed of (bera af, Z10) Eldgrímr if they
      >> had put-it-to-the-test between themselves, so little as
      >> was-placed before (ie as was needed to overcome?) him (ie
      >> beaten by an 80 year old man).

      > The last bit seems to be covered at (Z15), <lítit leggst
      > fyrir e-n> 'one has but a poor destiny': 'so poor a
      > destiny he [had] had'. CV actually has this as an example,
      > glossing 'who had been so easily slain, had made so poor a
      > defence'; 'so poor a showing he had made' would seem to be
      > a reasonably literal version of this reading. I suppose
      > that in this culture's terms making a poor showing in this
      > setting *is* having a poor destiny.

      > Laxdæla Saga, Mál og Menning, 1993 student´s edition
      > provides this explanation of the expression: „svo lítið
      > sem fyrir hann lagðist: þegar ekki þurfti meira til að
      > verða honum að fjörtjóni. e-ð leggst fyrir e-n: eð hendir
      > e-n, kemur fyrir e-n“ which I translated (with difficulty)
      > as „when (it) needed not more to cause his loss-of-life“

      That's pretty much how I read it, too.

      > which is similar to the CV gloss and, I think consistent
      > with my translation where overcome = slay. No mention of
      > destiny in their explanation, if my translation of it is
      > correct.

      My guess is that they're explaining the usage in this
      particular context, while CV and Z were trying to capture a
      sense common to this and other instance of the construction.
      I've no quarrel with the interpretation that he was easy to
      kill, put up a poor defence, etc.; I was just trying to
      explain, if only for my own benefit, how that the expression
      might have come to have that meaning in this context.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.