Sæll Imri

 

Your solution makes logical sense and it had occurred to me also, but I don´t think it is supported by the text we are using.

 

During the entire story 'konungr' appears seven times in the accusative. In three of those cases it is a direct reference to 'Svein konung' so you would not expect a definite article there anyway.

 

þú hafir fundit Svein konung ok gefit honum gorsimi.

lítt nýtr þú þá þess, er þú fant Svein konung.

ok sér þá at þú hefir fundit Svein konung

 

Of the remaining four instances,

 

ok er Auðun kom fyrir konung, kveðr hann konung vel.

áðr hann fór til Danmerkr, ok kveðr konung vel

Ok nú er hann sá konunginn ok hirðina fagrliga búna

 

The definite article is not used in three cases but it is quite clear that it is the king we have been talking about.

 

Also throughout the whole story konungr also appears regularly in the dative and genitive but not once with a definite article.

 

Which leaves me thinking that Haukur´s suggestion of an editorial inconsistency, either in the circa 1220, 1275, 1867 or 1932 text, is the most likely explanation.

 

Kveðja

Alan

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: IK [mailto:hobbi-germanista@...]
Sent: Saturday, 12 March 2005 9:34 AM
To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [norse_course] Auđun 'konunginn'-trouble

 

 

 

 

Sćll Alan,

 

 

I am new to ON, but I think I have a solution to the problem:

 

 >Throughout this story ‘konungr’ appears countless times without a

 >definite article where, in English, one would normally be used; then

 >out of the blue, the article is used in: ‘Ok nú er hann sá konunginn.’

 >Can anyone give a reason why it would be used on this particular

 >occasion?

 

As I have seen so far ON seems to be quite consequent in using

indefinite form when referring to a person – who is already introduced

to the reader - by his title. As in that part of the text that you have

translated the ’konungur’ is in definite form only when it becomes the

object (i.e. transformed to accusative) of the sentence:

 

'Ok nú er hann sá konunginn.'

 

Otherwise the word 'konungr' appears in nominative or dative.

May be using indefinite form when referring to an already introduced

person as the acting person seems to be ok in ON, but as soon as it

becomes the objective of the action of an other person it must be

clarified - by adding definite article - that it is the aforementioned

person and not someone new, i.e. 'He saw the king [that we've been

talking about]' and not a new king was seen. May be ON sees this time

better to use definite form, feeling that indefinite form could be

confusing.

 

 

Anyway I am may not be right,  one might give a different explanation

too.

 

Greetings,

 

Imre Kovacs

Hungary

 

 

 

 

 

 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->

Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?

Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!

http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/GP4qlB/TM

--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

 

A Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.

 

Homepage: http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/

 

To escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail to:

 

norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

 

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/norse_course/

 

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

    norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

 

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 11/03/2005