> En ek vilda eigi fara þangat svá lengi einn saman, ok ek
> hefi engi hest sem þinn.”

> But I would not go there so long all alone, and I have no
> horse as you (do)."

> And I would not want to go thither so far alone, and I
> have no horse like yours.”

It's not a subunctive, so it's just 'I don't want to go so
far alone'. Grace is right about <þinn> being possessive.

> En þá es þeir hǫfðu farit nekkvat í Gunganhraun, sá þeir
> marga tjalda ok hesta brennda, ok nái manna òk.

> And when they had gone somewhat in Gungan-wilderness, they
> saw many burned tents and horses, and overtook man drove
> (???).

> But then when they had gone some while in Gungan lava
> fields, they saw many tents and horses burned, and (the
> fire?) overtakes men also.

<Nái> is the accusative plural of <nár> 'a corpse, a dead
man': 'But when they had fared some way into [the] Gungan
lava fields, they saw many burned tents and horses, and also
men's corpses'.

> “Þessir eru þeir menn, es okkr Artú þrælkaða,” segir
> Þrípíó.

> These are the men, who enthralled us, R2 (and me)," says
> 3PO.

> “These are those men, who enthralled us, R2” says 3PO.

I would say 'who took us as thralls' or 'who enslaved us':
'enthralled' has a rather different meaning.

> En hverr vildi brenna þá alla inn? Tuskinssynir?
> But who would then burn all them? (The) sons of Tuskin?
> But who would want to burn them all? Tuskin’s sons?

I suspect that this should be understood as <brenna þá alla
inni> 'to burn them all in their dwellings'.

> Þessi spor hér eru sem þau es hestar þeira gøra – ríða
> Tuskinssynir furðulega stórum hestum.

> This trail here is as that which their horses make - (the)
> sons of Tuskin ride exceedingly large horses.

> These tracks here are those which their horses make –
> Tuskin;s sons ride very large horses.

<Þessi> is plural; I'd go with Grace's 'these tracks'.

> Enn hǫfðu Tuskinssynir ok Javasynir gríð sett; Útíni
> Javason vas Tuskins dóttir kvæntr.”

> Only (the) sons of Tuskin and Jaba's sons had established
> peace; Jaba's son Utin was married (to) Tuskin's
> daughter."

> But Tuskin’s sons also have made a truce with Java’s sons.
> Utini Java’s son was married to Tuskin’s daughter.”

I agree with Rob's reading.

> Víga-Óbívan segir, “Eigi vǭru þessi verk Tuskinssona, en
> þeir es gørðu þessi, vildu láta øss trúa svá.

> Slayer-Obiwan says, "This work is not of the sons of
> Tuskin, but they who did this, wanted us to believe so.

> Slayer Obiwan says, “This work is not that of Tuskin’s
> sons, but they who have done this would want to have us
> believe such.

<Þessi verk> is plural: 'These acts were not Tuskin's sons,
but those who did them wanted to make us believe so'.

> En konungsmenn eru frægir vegna bogmannanna.
> But (the) king's men are famous on account of bowmen.
> But king’s men are famous ?? bowmen.

Rob has it.

> Ef maðr vill bogmaðr konungs verða, hlýtr hann at skjóta
> með bakkakólfi í gǫgnum uxahúð hráblauta, es hekk á ási
> einum.”

> If a man will be a king's bowman, he is obliged to shoot
> with blunt-headed arrows through raw oxhide, which hung
> (assuming this should this have been "hékk" instead of
> "hekk") upon one pole.

> If a man wants to become a bowman of the king, he is
> obliged to to shoot with blunt arrows through a raw ox
> hide, which is hung on a ??

<Hekk> is okay, I think: the word began as *heng, the final
consonant devoiced to make it *henk, and the /n/ was
assimilated to the following /k/ to produce <hekk>. <Gekk>
from <ganga> followed the same course of development.
Occasionally the vowel was later lengthened, <hékk> being an
example; more often it was not. I'd guess that <hekk> is
actually more appropriate to the stage of the language in
which Jackson is trying to write this.

Rob's correctly identified <ási> as the dative of <áss> 'a
thick pole, main beam (in a house)', but I think that 'beam'
would be a better translation than 'pole'.

> “Fyrir hví vildu konungsmenn fara frá Nóregi til Íslands
> til þess at drepa ránsmenn?” spurði Lúkr, en sér hann
> Þrípíó ok Artú, “Þeir munu vesa komnir til þess at finna
> Írana, ok frægi þeir at Javasynir tóku þá, síðan frægi
> þeir at þeir seldu þá, ok at þeir búa nú… heima!”

> "Why would kings men travel from Norway to Iceland for
> that, to kill robbers?" asked Luke, but he sees 3PO and
> R2, "They would have come for that, to find Irish, and
> they heard that the sons of Jaba took them, then they
> informed them that they sold them, and that they live
> now…at home!"

> “Why do King’s men want to go from Norway to Iceland for
> this reason to kill robbers?” asked Luke and he sees 3PO
> and R2, “They will have come for this to find Irishmen and
> they would have learned (fregna??) that Java’s sons took
> them, afterwards they would have learned? that they sold
> them and that they ready (themselves) now (to go) home!”

<Vildu> is past tense, so Rob's 'would' is probably a better
choice. <Írana> is acc. plur. with the definite article:
'the Irishmen', referring to 3PO and R2. (That also
explains the 'but': they wouldn't have come for the robbers,
but they would have come for 3PO and R2.) <Frægi> is a past
subjunctive of <fregna>, used here with conditional sense:
'and if they learned that the sons of Jaba took them, they
would then [have] learned that they sold them, and that they
now live ... at home!' (with <búa> in sense (5) of Zoëga).
And at this point Luke suddenly realizes that his kin are in
danger.

> “Eigi far þangat, Lúkr!” œpti Víga-Óbívan upp, “Þat es
> líklegast, at þeir konungsmenn eru farnir nú þegar.

> "Don't go thither, Luke!" shouted out Slayer-Obiwan, "That
> is most likely, that the kingsmen are now gone at once.

> “Go not thither, Luke!” shouted Slayer Obiwan, “It is most
> likely that they, (the) king’s men have gone now at once.

<Nú þegar> is 'already' in the modern language, at least,
and context suggests that that's how it's being used here.

> Þú munt finna þar engum at hefna frænda þinna!”
> You would find there no one to avenge your kinsmen!"
> You will find there no one to avenge your kinsmen!”

<Hefna> takes the genitive of the thing or person for which
vengeance is being taken and the dative of the person on
whom it's being taken. Here <frænda þinna> is genitive
plural, but <engum> is dative, so the meaning is 'You will
find no one there on whom to avenge your kinsmen'.

Brian