--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Haukur Thorgeirsson"
<haukurth@...> wrote:

>
> Þorsteinn vissi ekki hvað orðið var af honum.
> - Þ. didn't know what had become of him.
>
> Þorsteinn vissi ekki hvað orðið væri af honum.
> - Þ. didn't know what had become of him.
>
> The last two do not have the exact same meaning
> but I'm not sure how to convey the difference in English.
> The second version seems to me to imply more uncertainty.
> The first one may imply that whereas Þ. doesn't know
> what has become of the fellow WE KNOW - or something
> like that.

Curious: no, I don't how you would suggest that in a simple way in
English. So it's not just the mininal difference between "what had
become of him" and "what might/could possibly have become of him"?
This is just a guess, but is the use of subjunctive here related to
its use in reported speech, like "he didn't know what was supposed
to have become of him [according to some people]"? Maybe not...

> I still haven't done much syntax/semantics (or wherever
> one thinks about stuff like this) at the University so
> I'm not on solid ground here.

I could do with a basic introduction to syntax: I keep finding
articles on interesting subjects, but they're more or less
incomprehensible to me because of the jargon. Or I have to just
skip the more theoretical bits and look at the examples.

>
> > The 2nd person singular forms
> > are the same as indicative, of course:
>
> For some verbs, like 'byggja'.

Oh yes, sorry: 'verðir' rather than 'verðr'; 'sitir' rather
than 'sitr'; and 'hverfir' rather than 'hverfr' (but the other verb
hverfa "to turn something" would have both ind. & subj. hverfir,
wouldn't it). In fact I think it's just 'byggir' and 'herðir' here
that are ambiguous in form.

> > Læt ek þat verða um mælt, at þú verðir at inni ljótustu

tröllkonu ok

> > hverfir norðr til Gandvíkr ok byggir þar afhelli ok sitir þar í
> > stóðrenni við Hrímni, bróður minn, ok eigizt þit við bæði margt

ok

> > illt, ok hafi þat verr, sem verr herðir sik.
> >
> > This do I solemnly say, that you turn into the most ugly troll-

woman

> > and go north to Gandvik (the White Sea) and live there in a side-
> > cave next door to my brother Hrimnir, and you will argue both

much

> > and hard, and...
> >
> > I'm a bit puzzled by the last line. herða sik "harden oneself,
> > steel oneself, take heart". She seems to be saying, "may it go
> > worst for whoever steels themselves the most." But this doesn't
> > make a great deal of sense to me yet.
>
> This is puzzling to me too. I wouldn't think 'verr'
> should be rendered as 'most'; it may mean the reverse.

Ah that might make a bit more sense. Could it be something
like: "May things go worst for the one who can cope the least
[namely you]." Or "May it be that the person who is least able to
keep their own spirits up will get the worst of it." Not very pithy
I fear, but how does that that sound?


The reason I guessed "more", I think, was Völundarkviða 37:

"Mæltira þú þat mál
er mik meir tregi
né ek þik vilja, Völundr,
verr um níta..."

You never said anything that grieved me more, nor that I want worse
(?) to deny (?) -- or avenge/punish (?).

I'd assumed that 'verr' went with 'vilja' here. In English we can
(and do!) want something badly, and to want something worse is to
want it "more". Does this apply in Icelandic though? On the other
hand the various translations I have to hand right now all
take 'verr' as qualifying 'níta': Nidud has never wanted to punish
anyone worse, or more severely. Which I suppose could also be
paraphrased "more". But the only meanings I can find for 'níta' in
CV, Zoega & Fritzner are "deny, refuse".

> Here's a subjunctive for you:
>
> Hjálpi æsir
> ok ásynjur,
> gervöll regin,
> gyðju sinni.

Not a very successful one though, if I remember right! A lesson to
us all there: good grammar doesn't always make for good magic...

Llama Nom