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

Njal 30 end

Expand Messages
  • Fred and Grace Hatton
    Gunnar gaf honum fingurgull og gekk síðan til manna sinna og sagði þeim að herskip lágu öðrum megin nessins og vita þeir allt til vor. Tökum vér
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Gunnar gaf honum fingurgull og gekk síðan til manna sinna og sagði þeim að
      herskip lágu öðrum megin nessins "og vita þeir allt til vor. Tökum vér nú
      vopn vor og búumst við öllu vel og skjótt því að nú er til fjár að vinna."

      Síðan bjuggust þeir við og þá er þeir voru búnir sjá þeir að skipin fara að
      þeim. Tekst nú orusta með þeim og berjast þeir lengi og verður mannfall
      mikið. Gunnar vó margan mann. Þeir Hallgrímur hljópu á skip til Gunnars.
      Gunnar sneri í mót Hallgrími. Hallgrímur lagði til hans með atgeirinum. Slá
      ein var um þvert skipið og hljóp Gunnar aftur yfir öfugur. Skjöldur Gunnars
      var fyrir framan slána og lagði Hallgrímur í hann og í gegnum og svo í
      slána. Gunnar hjó á hönd Hallgrími og lamdist handleggurinn en sverðið beit
      ekki. Féll þá niður atgeirinn. Gunnar tók atgeirinn og lagði í gegnum
      Hallgrím. Gunnar bar atgeirinn jafnan síðan. Þeir börðust nafnar og var nær
      hvorum vænna horfið. Þá kom Gunnar að og hjó Kolskegg banahögg. Eftir það
      beiddu víkingar sér griða. Gunnar lét þess kost. Hann lét þá kanna valinn og
      taka fé það er dauðir menn höfðu átt en hann gaf hinum vopn sín og klæði, er
      hann gaf grið, og bað þá fara til fósturjarða sinna. Þeir héldu í braut en
      Gunnar tók fé allt það er eftir var.

      Tófi kom að Gunnari eftir bardagann og bauð að fylgja honum til fjár þess er
      víkingar höfðu fólgið, kvað það vera bæði meira og betra en hitt er þeir
      höfðu áður fengið. Gunnar kveðst það vilja. Gekk hann á land með Tófa. Fór
      Tófi fyrir til skógar en Gunnar eftir. Þeir komu að þar sem viður var borinn
      saman mikill. Tófi segir að þar var féið undir. Ruddu þeir þá af viðinum og
      fundu undir bæði gull og silfur, klæði og vopn góð. Þeir bera fé þetta til
      skipa. Gunnar spurði Tófa hverju er hann vildi að hann launaði honum.

      Tófi svaraði: "Eg er danskur maður að ætt og vildi eg að þú flyttir mig til
      frænda minna."

      Gunnar spurði hví hann væri í Austurvegi.

      "Eg var tekinn af víkingum," segir Tófi, "og var mér skotið hér á land í
      Eysýslu og hefi eg hér verið síðan."
    • AThompson
      Here´s my translation. I would appreciate any comments on my efforts, particularly any underlined text. I hope my translation is of some use to others.
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 31, 2006
      • 0 Attachment

        Here´s my translation. I would appreciate any comments on my efforts, particularly any underlined text. I hope my translation is of some use to others.

        Kveðja

      • llama_nom
        ... fósturjarða sinna. In the second example, sinna refers to the unstated subject of the infinitive clause = þá , the direct object in the main clause.
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 31, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          > en hann gaf hinum vopn sín (why reflexive?) ... og bað þá fara til
          fósturjarða sinna.

          In the second example, 'sinna' refers to the unstated subject of the
          infinitive clause = 'þá', the direct object in the main clause. But
          in the first example, 'sín' must refer to 'hinum', the indirect
          (dative) object. There are some similar examples in Cleasby / Vigfússon:

          http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/png/oi_cleasbyvigfusson/b0529.png

          I don't know why this happens, but I've met quite a few examples, so I
          don't think it can be all that unusual for the reflexive possessive
          adjective 'sinn' to refer to something other than the subject,
          although Faarlund calls it "rare and contrary to the general rule".
          It's quite normal for 'sinn' and the reflexive pronouns 'sik' and
          'sér' to refer to oblique experiencers; examples from Faarlund's Old
          Norse Syntax:

          þótti honum nú sitt líf meðallagi gott
          his life now seemed reasonably good to him

          ef honum þykkir sér þat nökkut fullting
          if he thinks that (will be of) any help to him

          This is one of the reasons why some linguists classify these as dative
          subjects. But Faarlund also has one curious example where 'sér'
          refers to an "objectlike dative".

          ok keypti þar pell ágætlig, er hann ætlaði konungi til tignarklæði sér
          and bought there some very fine material which he procured for the
          king for his robes of state

          I can't remember meeting any other examples like this last one though,
          so I think it must be much rarer than instances of 'sinn' referring
          back to non-subjects. Faarlund doesn't have any examples of 'sik'
          refering back to an indisputable non-subject, so I'm not sure if this
          is possible. Unfortunately, he doesn't make a distinction between the
          possessive adjective and the pronouns here, so it's not clear if he
          his comments about the one apply equally to the other.

          LN
        • llama_nom
          ... Zoega has under horfa to look : hvárum horfir vænna who is more likely to get the better , but isn t the neuter past participle of this verb horft ?
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 31, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            > nær hvorum vænna horfið.

            Zoega has under 'horfa' "to look": hvárum horfir vænna "who is more
            likely to get the better", but isn't the neuter past participle of
            this verb 'horft'? 'horfið' here looks like the modern spelling of
            'horfit', neuter of 'horfinn', infinitive 'hverfa'. Or am I getting
            confused here? Could 'horfit' be the past participle of 'horfa' too?

            'vænna' is presumably the neuter of the comparative "more promising",
            so literally "it had looked (i.e. was looking) nearly more promising
            for each of them" = "it looked like it could go either way", or as you
            tranlated "it was a near thing".

            > hitt er þeir höfðu áður fengið.
            > had acquired before (already?)

            already: that would be my guess. I see that MM & HP have the same. I
            don't know how wise it is to try to reason these things out, but I
            suppose Tófi won't necessarily know of these previous adventures, only
            that they've just got some wealth here.

            > Gunnar kveðst það vilja.
            > Gunnar declared-himself to want that (did he want to be guided or
            did he want the
            trehttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/norse_course/post?act=reply&messageNum=7488asure?)

            My guess, for what that's worth, would be that the immediate meaning
            is that he wanted to be guided. I could be wrong.

            > Þeir komu að þar sem viður var borinn saman mikill.
            > They came to there where (the) wood was carried (collected) much
            together.

            I see MM & HP take this as chopped wood "to where a number of trees
            had been piled up."

            > og var mér skotið hér á land

            Not a correction, I just thought I'd call attention to this as an
            example of the verbs of throwing and thrusting taking the dative for
            the thing thrown or thrust, this came up recently [
            http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/norse_course/message/7462 ]. As is
            the rule, the dative object is preseved in the passive and the past
            participle is neuter: þeir skutu mér hér á landi : mér var skotit hér
            á landi.

            LN
          • llama_nom
            ... it looked better .
            Message 5 of 6 , Oct 31, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > > nær hvorum vænna horfið.
              >
              > Zoega has under 'horfa' "to look": hvárum horfir vænna "who is more
              > likely to get the better", but isn't the neuter past participle of
              > this verb 'horft'?


              Just got a message from Eysteinn:

              > My texts all have:

              > "... var nær hvorum vænna horfði", i.e. "it was hard to say for whom
              it looked better".
            • llama_nom
              ... After consulting further (and some patient explaining on Eysteinn s part), I think I finally see how the syntax works in this sentence! The main clause is:
              Message 6 of 6 , Nov 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                > Just got a message from Eysteinn:
                >
                > > My texts all have:
                >
                > > "... var nær hvorum vænna horfði", i.e. "it was hard to say for whom
                > it looked better".


                After consulting further (and some patient explaining on Eysteinn's
                part), I think I finally see how the syntax works in this sentence!

                The main clause is: 'ok var nær' "and it was close (=a close thing)".
                The subject of this main clause is the subordinate clause 'hvárum
                vænna horfði' "for-which-of-the-two it looked more-promising".
                Compare these examples which Faarlund cites (pp. 254-5):

                Eigi er mér kunnigt, hversu víðfleygð vár roeða vill gørask.
                "I do not know how widely known out conversation will become."

                Eigi er undarligt, at þú sér kallaðr Óláfr digri.
                "It is no wonder that you are called Olaf the Sout."

                Þat er engum manni blint, hverjar föðurboetr hugðar eru Hákoni konungi.
                "It is obvious to everybody what compensation for his father is
                intended for King Hakon."

                The only difference with the last example is that 'þat' "it" is
                explicit, as "it" would be in English if the main clause came first,
                whereas in our example from Njála, the subordinate clause is itself
                the subject of the main clause. But in Old Norse, 'þat' is optional
                in such sentences. Does that make sense?

                Subordinate clauses can also be objects, in which case the 'þat' in
                the main clause (if there is one) is accusative or genitive or dative,
                as the context requires.

                ACC.

                Veit Þorsteinn eigi, hvat af honum verðr.
                "Th. doesn't know what's become of him."

                En þat veit ek eigi, hvat þá skal at hafa, ef ...
                "But I don't know what's to be done if ..."
                Literally: "But that I don't know, what is to be done if ..."

                GEN.

                Bið ek, at þú veitir þeim skýr andsvör
                "I ask that you give them a clear answer"

                bið ek þess, at þú komir eigi til Svíþjóðar þeirar tíðar at ...
                "I ask that you don't come to Sweden on the occasion when ...
                Literally: "I ask that, that you come not to Sweden on the occasion
                when ..."

                DAT.

                En því var hann kenndr við móður sína, at hon lifði lengr en faðir hans.
                "And (for that reason) he was named after his mother, because she
                lived longer than his father."

                ok af því inu sama vildi Geirmundr sigla út þegar um sumarit er þeir
                kómu við Noreg, því at þá væri hallat sumri
                "and for that same reason, G. wanted to sail immediately that summer
                when they came to Norway, because it was late summer then"


                What confused me about 'var nær hvorum vænna horfði' was the fact that
                'nær' can also take a dative complement, "near to", and here it is
                followed by a dative pronoun, as if it might mean "near to which".
                But I can see now that this is just a coincidence. Well, I'm not sure
                how well I explained that, so please let me know if I'm talking
                nonsense or if this is still baffling anyone.

                LN



                --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:
                >
                > --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@> wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > > nær hvorum vænna horfið.
                > >
                > > Zoega has under 'horfa' "to look": hvárum horfir vænna "who is more
                > > likely to get the better", but isn't the neuter past participle of
                > > this verb 'horft'?
                >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.