Thanks for your help with the last section of Laxdaela Saga.
> Fara nÃº menn Ã milli Ã¾eirra er voru beggja vinir og bera
> sÃ¦ttarorÃ° af HÃ¶skulds hendi til HrÃºts en HrÃºtur tÃ³k Ã¾vÃ
> vel, kvaÃ°st aÃ° vÃsu vilja semja viÃ° HÃ¶skuld, kvaÃ°st Ã¾ess
> lÃ¶ngu hafa veriÃ° bÃºinn aÃ° Ã¾eir semdu sÃna frÃ¦ndsemi eftir
> Ã¾vÃ sem vera Ã¦tti ef HÃ¶skuldur vildi honum rÃ©tts unna.
> Men now go between them who were friends of both and
> convey words-of-peace from Hoskuld's hands to Hrut's, and
> Hrut received that well, stated-for-himself (he) certainly
> want(ed) to treat with Hoskuld, stated-for-himself of-that
> long-ago (he) has been ready that they should restore
> their relationship to a proper footing if Hoskuld wanted
> (to) grant him his due. (Z. semja 4 Â- at Ã¾eir semdi sÃna
> frÃ¦ndsemi eptir Ã¾vÃ sem vera Ã¦tti, that they should
> restore their relationship to a proper footing)
> Men now go between them and were friends of both and
> carried words of reconciliation on Hoskuld's behalf to
> Hrut and Hrut received it well, said he certainly wanted
> to treat with (semja Z 2) Hoskuld, said of himself to have
> been ready for this for a long time that they restore
> their relationship (semja Z 4) after it as to be entitled?
> if Hoskuld wanted to do right by him.
> Men (persons) now go (in the extended sense of mediate)
> between them, who were friends of both and carried
> words-of-mediation from HÃ¶skuldrÂ´s hand (ie on behalf of
> HÃ¶skuldr) to HrÃºtr but (and) HrÃºtr received that well,
> declared-for-himself certainly to want to settle with
> HÃ¶skuldr, declared-of-himself for a long time to have been
> willing for that, that they mend their kinship in line
> with (after) that which was-obliged (eiga, Z3) to be (? to
> a proper footing), if HÃ¶skuldr wanted to grant him (the)
> right (his due).
Since 'due' is a possible translation of <rÃ©ttr>, I'd
probably go with 'grant him [his] due', as Rob did. <Ã?tti>
is an impersonal past subjunctive that here means 'ought',
so <eptir Ã¾vÃ sem vera Ã¦tti> is 'according as [it] ought to
be'. See CV s.v. <eiga> (A.II.1), specifically the examples
at the top of the second column on p. 118.
> HrÃºtur kvaÃ°st og HÃ¶skuldi vilja unna sÃ³ma fyrir afbrigÃ°
> Ã¾au er hann hafÃ°i gert af sinni hendi.
> Hrut stated-for-himself also to-Hoskuld (to) want (to)
> grant honor for those transgressions which he (i.e., Hrut)
> had done with his hands.
> Hrut said he also wanted to do honour for those
> transgressions which he had done on his behalf.
> HrÃºtr declared-of-himself also to want to bestow honour to
> HÃ¶skuldr for those transgressions which he had done on his
> behalf (for his own part).
ZoÃ«ga's gloss for <sÃ³mi> is incomplete: it can also mean
'compensation', and does here. HrÃºt wants to recompense
HÃ¶skuld for the wrongs that he, HrÃºt, had done HÃ¶skuld.
> Eru nÃº Ã¾essi mÃ¡l sett og samiÃ° Ã milli Ã¾eirra brÃ¦Ã°ra
> HÃ¶skulds og HrÃºts.
> This agreement was now made and (it was) settled between
> them, (the) brothers Hoskuld and Hrut.
> Now these cases are settled and reconciled between those
> brothers, Hoskuld and Hrut.
> These matters ae now settled and settled between those
> brothers, HÃ¶skuldr and HrÃºtr.
I'd say 'settled and put right between' or the like.
> HrÃºtur gÃ¦tir nÃº bÃºs sÃns og gerist mikill maÃ°ur fyrir sÃ©r.
> Hrut now takes-care-of his farm and became a powerful man.
> (Z. fyrir 13 Â- mikill f. sÃ©r, strong, powerful)
> Hrut takes care of his farm now and makes a great man of
> HrÃºtr attends now to his farm and becomes a great
> (important) man of himself (in his own right).
Rob's got this one: <mikill fyrir sÃ©r> is an idiom, 'of
great importance or power'.
> Ãzar er nÃº Ã¾jÃ³Ã°gata.
> A high road is now there. (Zoega has "high road," which
> apparently in American English means a main road.)
It's not an American usage; it's an old British usage.
> There is now a high road.
> There is now a high-road (public thoroughfare).
And as Alan indicates, it's quite literally a public
thoroughfare: <Ã¾jÃ³Ã°gata> 'people-road'.
> AÃ°ra konu Ã¡tti HrÃºtur Ã¾Ã¡ er ÃzorbjÃ¶rg hÃ©t.
> Then Hrut had another wife who was-named Thorbjorg.
> Hrut had another wife then who was called Thorbjorg.
> HrÃºtr had (in marriage) a second wife (woman), that-one
> who was called ÃzorbjÃ¶rg.
<ÃzÃ¡> is ambiguous, and I can't offhand rule out the 'now'
interpretation, but I'm inclined to read it as Alan did, as
if it were punctuated <AÃ°ra konu Ã¡tti HrÃºtur, Ã¾Ã¡ er ÃzorbjÃ¶rg
> Svo segja menn aÃ° HrÃºtur vÃ¦ri svo Ã¡ Ã¾ingi eitt sumar aÃ°
> fjÃ³rtÃ¡n synir hans vÃ¦ru meÃ° honum.
> So say men that Hrut were so, at (the) Thing one summer
> that fourteen of his sones were with him.
> So say people that Hrut were so at (the) Thing one summer
> that fourteen sons of his were with him.
> Men (persons) so say, that HrÃºtr was at (the) Thing one
> summer such that fourteen sons of his were with him.
Rob & Grace: The subjunctive <vÃ¦ri> doesn't carry over into
English in this context. Its function here is to indicate
some uncertainty on the speaker's part, because this is
hearsay. English 'It is said' probably has about the same
> Ãzorleikur gerir bÃº Ã¡ Ã¾eim bÃ¦ er heitir Ã¡ Kambsnesi og
> leysir HÃ¶skuldur Ãºt fÃ© hans.
> Thoreik builds a farm at the farms which are-called
> Combs-ness and Hoskuld pays out his money.
> Thorleik makes a home in that farm which is called at
> Comb's Ness and Hoskuld pays out his money.
> Ãzorleikr builds a house at that farm which is called (at)
> Kambsnes (Combâ?Ts-Ness) and HÃ¶skuldr pays out his money
I think that Grace has correctly interpreted <gerir bÃº>;
Ãzorleik is simply taking over the farm where HrÃºt lived for
three years before moving to HrÃºtsstaÃ°ir. Ãzorleik is
HÃ¶skuld's son, so this arrangement is apparently part of the
reconciliation between HÃ¶skuld and HrÃºt. That's also how I
interpret the last clause: HÃ¶skuld (finally) pays out to
HrÃºt his (HrÃºt's) share of the estate.
> HafÃ°i hann Ã¾Ã¡ umsÃ½slu ekki minnur en HÃ¶skuldur.
> He had then not less aid than Hoskuld. (Whatever that
> He had then no less a manager than Hoskuld.
> He had that (then?) an occupation (position, ie his
> authority in managing the farm) not less than HÃ¶skuldr.
Alan's interpretation is right (with 'then'), but CV is a
little more helpful than ZoÃ«ga here: it offers 'management'
as one of the glosses for <umsÃ½sla>. 'He had then
management no less than HÃ¶skuld'.
> DÃ¦tra HÃ¶skulds er hÃ©r eigi getiÃ° mjÃ¶g.
> (It) is not spoken-of much Hoskuld's daughters.
> Hoskuld's daughters are here not mentioned more.
> (The) daughters of HÃ¶skuldr are not mentioned much.
HÃ¶skuld's daughters are not mentioned much *here*.
> ÃzÃ³ eru menn frÃ¡ Ã¾eim komnir.
> Although men/people were descended from them.
> Still people are descended from them.
> Still persons are come (descended) from them.
'Nevertheless' would be my first choice. Both it and
'still' work, but either needs to be followed by a comma:
'Nevertheless, people are descended from them', with an
implication (I think) that the number of descendants is
Fred and Grace Hatton