> Hann kvaðst séð hafa menn eigi allfá "og hygg eg að vera
> munu utanhéraðsmenn."

> He said for himself to have seen not too few men "and I
> think that (they) would be people from out of the
> district."

> He said he had seen men, (and) not few, “and I think that
> (they) will be men from outside the district.”

> He declared-of-himself to have seen persons (men) not
> totally-small-in-number “and I think that (it) will be
> persons-from-outside-the-district.”

<Munu> is plural, so the implied subject is 'they'.

I really like <eigi allfá> -- yet another litotes.

> Helgi mælti: "Hvar voru þeir er þú sást þá eða hvað
> höfðust þeir að eða hugðir þú nokkuð að klæðabúnaði þeirra
> eða yfirlitum?"

> Helgi said: "Where were they when you saw them? What did
> they do? Did you attend clearly to their clothes or
> appearance? (Z. hafa 15 – hafast at, to do) (Z. hyggja 5 –
> hyggja at e-u, to attend to, mind)

> Helgi spoke, “Where were they when you saw them or what
> were they up to or did you notice their clothing or
> personal appearances?”

> Helgi spoke: “Where were they when you saw them or what
> did they do (hafast, Z15) or did you attend to their
> apparel or personal-appearance?”

I would translate each of the first two instances of <eða>
as 'and', not 'or' (or omit them, as Rob did).

> Hann svarar: "Ekki varð mér þetta svo mjög um felmt að eg
> hugleiddag eigi slíka hluti því að eg vissi að þú mundir
> eftir spyrja."

> He answers: "This didn't happen so much to me in terms of
> fear that I did not pay attention to such things because I
> knew that you would ask about (them).

> He answers, “Nothing of this came over me so much
> regarding fear that I did not consider such thing because
> I knew that you would ask about (them).”

> He answers: “This did not befall me so greatly
> in-regard-to fright (ie I was not so frightened by this)
> that I did not pay attention to such things because I knew
> you would ask about (them).”

I have no idea why we have <hugleiddak> = <hugleidda-ek>
when we already have the pronoun <ek> before the verb,
effectively doubling the subject. It's an interesting
change from the usual omissions!

> Helgi spyr hvort þeir sætu í hvirfingi eða hver út frá
> öðrum.

> Helgi asks if they sat down in a circle or away from each
> other (?). (Z. hvirfing 1 - setjast í hvirfing, to sit
> down in a circle)

> Helgi asks whether they sat in a circle or each out from
> the others.

> Helgi asks whether they sat in a circle or each out from
> the other(s) (ie extending in a straight line).

This seems as if it ought to mean something significant, but
I've not seen any commentary on it.

> Eða hvað mun hann vilja oss kappinn?"

> What will he want of us champions?"

> Or what will he, a champion, want with us?”

> So what will he want with us, the-man-of-valour (this is
> referring to Þorgils, nominative)?”

Here it's nominative, agreeing with the subject <hann> of
<mun>, but referring to Þorgils (whose name in the previous
sentence is in the accusative).

> Hann var ljóslitaður og liður á nefi og nokkuð hafið upp
> framan nefið, eygður allvel, bláeygur og snareygur og
> nokkuð skoteygur, ennibreiður og fullur að vöngum.

> He was light colored and hook-nosed and had a somewhat
> turned-up (?) nose, very fine eyes, blue-eyed and
> keen-eyed and somewhat restless of eye, having a broad
> forehead and full cheeks.

> He was fair skinned and hook-nosed and somewhat up before
> the nose, (with) good eyes, blue-eyed and keen eyed and
> somewhat restless eyed, having a broad forehead and full
> in the cheeks.

> He was light-coloured and hook-nosed (lit: a joint was on
> the nose, see liðr, Z2) and the-nose had raised up
> somewhat from-the-front (he had a slightly upturned
> nose?), eyed very-well, blue-eyed and keen-eyed and
> somewhat restless-of-eye, broad-foreheaded, and full in
> the upper-cheeks (I think we´re still focussed on the
> face).

<Hafið> is the adjectival past participle of <hefja>, neuter
nom. sing. to agree with <nefið>: 'and the nose somewhat
raised up on the front'. So yes, I take it that he had a
slightly upturned nose; MM&HP make it 'slightly tilted at
the tip'.

> Hann hafði brúnaskurð á hári og hann var vel vaxinn um
> herðar og þykkur undir hönd.

> He had bangs cut straight across the brows and he was full
> grown about the shoulders (i.e., broad-shouldered) and
> stout underarms (???).

> He had bangs as to hair and he was well grown about the
> shoulders and thick below the arms.

> He had a cutting-straight-across-the-brows with (his) hair
> and he was well developed across (the) shoulders and thick
> under arm (had firm lats (latissimus dorsi)?).

My other edition explains <þykkr undir hǫnd> as <dick
unterhalb des Armes> 'thick below the arm', meaning 'with a
strong body/trunk'. MM&HP agree, making him
'barrel-chested'.

> Hann hafði allfagra hönd og sterklegan handlegg og allt
> var hans látbragð kurteislegt og því orði lýk eg á að eg
> hefi engan mann séð jafnvasklegan að öllu.

> He had fair hands and strong forearms and his bearing was
> completely courteous and I finish the report at that I
> have seen no man equally energetic of all.

> He had good looking arms and powerful forearms and in all
> ways his bearing was courteous and I end these words that
> I have seen no man equally gallant in all ways.

> He had a very-fair hand and strong forearm (note
> grammatically singular) and his bearing was completely
> courteous (dignified) and I conclude on that word (note)
> that I have seen no person (man) of-equal-gallant-bearing
> in every respect.

<Hönd> is ambiguous, but given the pairing with <handlegg>,
I'm inclined to agree with Rob and Alan that 'hand' is more
likely than 'arm'.

Brian