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

Njal 64 end + 65 beginning

Expand Messages
  • Fred and Grace Hatton
    Reið þá Gunnar heim fyrst. En nokkurum nóttum síðar riðu þeir Njálssynir og Gunnar þangað til sem líkin voru og grófu þá upp alla sem jarðaðir
    Message 1 of 8 , May 31, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Reið þá Gunnar heim fyrst.

      En nokkurum nóttum síðar riðu þeir Njálssynir og Gunnar þangað til sem líkin
      voru og grófu þá upp alla sem jarðaðir voru. Stefndi Gunnar þeim þá öllum
      til óhelgi fyrir aðför og fjörráð og reið heim eftir það.


      65. kafli

      Þetta haust hið sama kom út Valgarður hinn grái og fór heim til Hofs.
      Þorgeir fór að finna þá Valgarð og Mörð og sagði hver firn voru er Gunnar
      skyldi hafa óhelgað þá alla er hann hafði vegið. Valgarður kvað það vera
      mundu ráð Njáls og þó eigi öll upp komin þau sem hann mundi ráða honum.
      Þorgeir bað þá feðga liðveislu og atgöngu en þeir fóru lengi undan og mæltu
      til fé mikið að lyktum. Var það í ráðagerðum að Mörður skyldi biðja Þorkötlu
      dóttur Gissurar hvíta og skyldi Þorgeir þegar ríða vestur um ár með þeim
      Valgarði og Merði.

      Annan dag eftir riðu þeir tólf saman og komu til Mosfells og var þeim þar
      vel fagnað, voru þar um nóttina. Vekja þeir þá til við Gissur um bónorðið.
      Lýkur svo með þeim að ráðin skyldu takast og skyldi boð vera á hálfs mánaðar
      fresti að Mosfelli. Ríða þeir heim. Síðan fjölmenna þeir feðgar mjög til
      boðsins. Var þar og margt fyrirboðsmanna og fór það vel fram. Fór Þorkatla
      heim með Merði og var fyrir búi en Valgarður fór utan um sumarið.

      Mörður eggjar Þorgeir á um málatilbúnað við Gunnar. Þorgeir fór að finna
      Önund í Tröllaskógi, biður hann nú búa til vígsmálið Egils bróður síns og
      sona hans "en eg mun búa til vígsmál bræðra minna og áverkamál mitt og föður
      míns."

      Önundur kvaðst þess albúinn. Fara þeir þá og lýsa vígunum og kveðja níu
      vettvangsbúa.

      Þessi málatilbúnaður spurðist til Hlíðarenda. Ríður Gunnar þá að finna Njál
      og segir honum og spurði hvað hann vildi þá láta að gera.
    • AThompson
      Thanks LN for comments on previous section - much appreciated. Alan Reið þá Gunnar heim fyrst. Then Gunnar rode home first. En nokkurum nóttum (plural)
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment

        Thanks LN for comments on previous section - much appreciated.

        Alan

        Reið þá Gunnar heim fyrst.
        Then Gunnar rode
        home

        (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

      • llama_nom
        og sagði hver firn voru er Gunnar skyldi hafa óhelgað þá alla er hann hafði vegið I think er is here equivalent to at that (Zoega II.3, rather
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          og sagði hver firn voru er Gunnar skyldi hafa óhelgað þá alla er hann
          hafði vegið

          I think 'er' is here equivalent to 'at' "that" (Zoega II.3, rather
          that "when" Zoega II.2): "and said what an abomination it was that G.
          should have declared outlaws all those whom he had killed." Compare:

          eru þat hin mestu firn, at þér ætlið fyrir at leggja á allt fólk ánauðarok
          "that is a very great outrage that you intent to lay the yoke of
          bondage on the whole people"

          Although the noun 'firn' is plural, grammatically, it can refer to a
          single abominable act [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurale_tantum ].


          Alan:

          > Þorgeir fór að finna þá (acc pl of sá, I think)Valgarð og Mörð og
          sagði hver firn voru er Gunnar
          > Þorgeir went to meet them, Valgarð and Mörð, and related what
          abominations (they) were when Gunnar

          I think that's right. Probably not an absolute rule, but if it had
          been the adverb "then", I would have expected it to come immediately
          after the finite verb 'fór'.


          Patricia:

          > alla sem jarðaðir voru

          "all (those) who were buried" -- past participle, masc.nom.pl., of
          'jarða' "to bury, inter" (derived from the noun 'jörð' "earth").
          'sem' is the relative pronoun.

          > Valgarður kvað það vera mundu ráð Njáls
          > Valgarð declared that it would be Njal's counsel/advice

          That's right; 'mundu' is the past infinitive (see Gordon, section
          171), subordinate to 'kvað'.

          > Lýkur svo [...]
          > At last [...]

          Literally, "it concludes thus". "At last" seems like a good
          paraphrase to me.

          > Þessi málatilbúnaður spurðist til Hlíðarenda.
          > This preparation of a suit was heard of (?noised abroad) at Hliðarend.

          Yes, that's right: word/news of it reached H.

          > albúinn
          > completely ready

          Yes.


          Grace:

          > fjörráð
          > ambush plot?

          Literally the plot against his life.

          LN
        • AThompson
          ... From: norse_course@yahoogroups.com [mailto:norse_course@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of llama_nom Sent: Saturday, 2 June 2007 8:36 AM To:
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment

            -----Original Message-----
            From: norse_course@yahoogroups.com [mailto:norse_course@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of

          • Patricia Wilson
            May I offer my two pence - I have checked my translation and tend to agree here with Alan I have this and said what an abomination (CV1) it was for Gunnar to
            Message 5 of 8 , Jun 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              May I offer my two pence - I have checked my translation and tend to agree here with Alan
              I have this
              and said what an abomination (CV1) it was for Gunnar to have  outlawed (declared as outlaw) all he had killed
              This strikes me Alan that 'er' is indeed the equivalent of 'that' - which indeed I would necessarily have used - if I had not done it the way I did
              I saw  that there was an abomination in calling them outlaws - well to Morð's way of thinking it certainly was but one abomination covering all deaths - and the act of declaring 'that' they were outlaws was the abomination - if we use 'when' then it implies that if he said they were outlaws then at that time - it was wrong - but if he had waited until later it might not have been so bad - I do believe I may have caught the gist of what you are getting at Alan - it is the fact that - they are called outlaws at all - that upsets Morð - who was stirring it at the time
              JMO
              Whew - I hope I have explained myself
              Kveðja
              Patricia
               
              -------Original Message-------
               
              From: AThompson
              Date: 06/02/07 06:53:35
              Subject: RE: [norse_course] Re: Njal 64 end + 65 beginning
               

              -----Original Message-----
              From: norse_course@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:norse_ course@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of
              llama_nom
              Sent:
              Saturday, 2 June 2007 8:36 AM
              To: norse_course@ yahoogroups. com
              Subject: [norse_course] Re: Njal 64 end + 65 beginning

              og sagði hver firn voru er Gunnar skyldi hafa óhelgað þá alla er hann
              hafði vegið

              I think 'er' is here equivalent to 'at' "that" (Zoega II.3, rather
              that "when" Zoega II.2): "and said what an abomination it was that G.
              should have declared outlaws all those whom he had killed."

              Maybe. Compare: ‘It is unfortunate when something happens’ with ‘It is unfortunate that something happens’ Both completely appropriate in English and shows that you cannot fully separate the idea that an event happens from its occirrence in time. If ‘that’ had been meant here why not use ‘at’ (að) as occurs regularly throughout the text?

              Point on plurale tantum taken but I regarded the proclamation against each separate dead body as a separate abomination in its own right J

              Alan

               




              No virus found in this incoming message.
              Checked by AVG Free Edition.
              Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.6/828 - Release Date: 1/06/2007 11:22 AM


              No virus found in this outgoing message.
              Checked by AVG Free Edition.
              Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.6/828 - Release Date: 1/06/2007 11:22 AM

               
            • AThompson
              Patricia, your argument indicates you agree with LM, not me. I was in fact arguing the opposite, viz: that when Gunnar did what he did, it gave rise to an
              Message 6 of 8 , Jun 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment

                Patricia, your argument indicates you agree with LM, not me. I was in fact arguing the opposite, viz: that when Gunnar did what he did, it gave rise to an abomination, not a second sooner or a second l

                (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

              • llama_nom
                ... English ... happens from ... Fair point. If I had to guess one, in this context, I d pick that , but I could be wrong. ... The use of er in this way is
                Message 7 of 8 , Jun 2, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  >> -----Original Message-----
                  >> From: llama_nom

                  >> og sagði hver firn voru er Gunnar skyldi hafa óhelgað þá alla er hann
                  >> hafði vegið
                  >>
                  >> I think 'er' is here equivalent to 'at' "that" (Zoega II.3, rather
                  >> that "when" Zoega II.2): "and said what an abomination it was that G.
                  >> should have declared outlaws all those whom he had killed."

                  > From: AThompson
                  >
                  > Maybe. Compare: `It is unfortunate when something happens' with `It is
                  > unfortunate that something happens' Both completely appropriate in
                  English
                  > and shows that you cannot fully separate the idea that an event
                  happens from
                  > its occurrence in time.

                  Fair point. If I had to guess one, in this context, I'd pick "that",
                  but I could be wrong.

                  > If `that' had been meant here why not use `at' (að)
                  > as occurs regularly throughout the text?

                  The use of 'er' in this way is perfectly normal Old Norse grammar, as
                  far as I know, I suppose just a special instance of its use as a
                  relative pronoun. In such instances, rather than referring back to a
                  noun in the main clause, 'er' represents a clausal subject, whether
                  prefigured by 'þat' or not. See Zoega and CV under 'er', also
                  Nygaard: `Om brugen af konjunktiv i oldnorsk' § 40, note 2 [
                  http://runeberg.org/anf/1883/0355.html ]. But as Nygaard writes:
                  "Sometimes, when 'er' stands in place of 'at', it can be uncertain as
                  to whether the clause might not be more correctly understood as a
                  temporal clause." Here's one from Faarlund, p. 256, his translation:

                  fannsk þat á öllu, er hon þóttisk vargefin
                  "it showed in everything that she thought she was marrying beneath her"

                  Interestingly, according to Nygaard, 'er' and 'at' are each attested,
                  in this last example, in different manuscripts of Njáls saga, which
                  could support the idea that there's no temporal reference in that one.
                  Some other examples of 'firn' (not that this will necessarily decide
                  the matter):


                  With ER:

                  Hann hljóp að Kjartani og rak hann niður og kvað mikil firn er
                  auvirð það lagðist að konum
                  "He charged at K. and knocked him down and said it was a great outrage
                  { ?that, ?when } that wretch lay with women"


                  With EF:

                  og eru það mikil firn ef eg skal taka af þér ill orð
                  "and that is a great outrage if I take insulting words from you"

                  og sagði Jökull það mikil firn ef menn skyldu ræna þá þar í dalnum
                  "and J. said it would be a great outrage if men should rob them there
                  in the valley"


                  With AT (apparently the most usual collocation):

                  eru þat hin mestu firn, at þér ætlið fyrir at leggja á allt fólk ánauðarok
                  "that is a very great outrage that you intend to lay the yoke of
                  bondage on the whole people"

                  Slíkt er firn mikil, at ótíginn maðr skal eiga systr okkra.
                  "It is a great outrage that a commoner should marry our sister."

                  Þorgeir vildi drepa boðsmennina og kvað firn í að þeir voru leyndir
                  svikum slíkum
                  "Th. wanted to kill the messengers and said it was an outrage that
                  they were hidden with such tricks"

                  Slíkt eru firn mikil að Íslendingar skuli til þess fara hingað í
                  land að drepa umboðsmenn
                  "It is a great outrage that Icelanders should come to this country to
                  kill stewards"

                  "Þetta eru firn mikil," segir drottning, "at þú trunsar við fagnaði
                  þessum
                  "This is a great outrage," says the queen, "that you turn up your nose
                  at this welcome"

                  mæltu margir menn svo að Njáll heyrði að slíkt væru mikil firn að
                  hafna fornum sið og átrúnaði.
                  "many people said in N.'s hearing that it was a great outrage to
                  abandon the old ways and faith"

                  firn er, at fund minn girniz flausta meiðr
                  "it's shocking that the tree of ships [man] desires to meet me"


                  (Incidentally, the singular verb in some of these is because it is
                  agreeing with the (clausal) subject, rather than the plural complement
                  'firn'. Obviously there's some fluctuation on this. In English we
                  have to say "it is" or "they are", but Icelandic allows "it are" when
                  the complement is plural.)


                  > Point on plurale tantum taken but I regarded the proclamation
                  against each
                  > separate dead body as a separate abomination in its own right J
                  > Alan

                  Can we find any examples where 'firn' is definitely used as a count
                  noun like this? I still suspect that it might be more natural to
                  suppose that he's referring to the whole sorry business as 'firn'.
                  But if it is ever used of multiple shocking things, presumably that
                  would be an alternative possibility, at least as far as the grammar
                  goes. As ever, I could be mistaken!

                  LN
                • llama_nom
                  ... In such instances, rather than referring back to a noun in the main clause, er represents a clausal subject, whether prefigured by þat or not. In some
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jun 2, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I suppose just a special instance of its use as a relative pronoun.
                    In such instances, rather than referring back to a noun in the main
                    clause, 'er' represents a clausal subject, whether prefigured by 'þat'
                    or not.

                    In some examples anyway. Others don't necessarily fit that model:

                    Boet við Hrímgerði, er þú lézt höggvinn Hata.
                    Compensate H. for having killed Hati.

                    Iðrumk ek mjök, er honum er gipt dóttir Magnús konungs.
                    I regret greatly that the daughter of King Magnus has been married to him.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.