> On the other hand, these entries in the Lexicon Poeticum
> Antiquæ Linguæseptentrionalis  would suggest that there
> must have been some textual support for <skýja>, unless
> subsequent scholarship has discredited or corrected these
I’d guess that that’s what’s happened, given the complete
lack of any mention by GPH, but it would be nice to see all
of the mss.
> I must admit that, for the only ms I have looked at, it
> looks more like <skytia> than <skyja>
Nice legible hand, that! And I don’t think that there’s any
doubt that it’s <skytia> here, though the scribe does seem
to have divided it improperly from the preceding word. I
Margr mundi sa sender sokn gifrs muni lifi liNa vangs f^
longu lundur er nu rekr undañ ef brynh^þ^ bædi biti
tygiligs kytia nidr drepur skalld und skilldi skeGi mal
I don’t know the hand well enough to expand the three
superscripted scribal abbreviations, which I’ve simply
replaced with carets. I am familiar with the use of upper
case <N> and <G> to indicate <nn> and <gg>, respectively.
The sequence <nu> is in several places on the page
indistinguishable from <nn>, save that the latter seems not
to occur, being replaced either by <N> or by <ñ> (where the
tilde actually represents an overbar). (By the way,
<undann> is a known spelling variant of <undan>.) Vowel
length, not too surprisingly, isn’t indicated, and neither
are <d> and <ð> (which is completely unsurprising).
Finally, the scribe attached the <s> of <skytia> to the
preceding word and left a bit of a space between it and the
<k>, but clearly <tygilig skytia> is intended.