<pagina 128>

12.her hæfr vpp soloecismum.

(1)Soloecismus er la/str isamansættv mali gær imoti reglvm rettra
malsgræina, ok verðr soloecismus itueim p@... eða fleirum. Enn
barbarismus verðr i æinni s@..., sæm fyR ær ritat. (2) Soloecismus feck
nafn af borg þeirri, ær forðvm var k@... soloe ænn nv hæitir
pentapolis. þeirrar borar lyðr for til athenis borgar i girklandi at
nema þar mal, ok þar spilltu þeir hvarritvæggiu tungunni með vándvm
orða
dé,tti ok k@... girkir þann mals laust soloecismum af borginnni
soloe
ok cismus; þat er slita æða svndrskorning at uáru mali, þviat sa
laustr
sleit malsins parta, þa er spilltv tveim tnngvm.

<English translation>:
"SOLOECISM is an error in the composition of the language,
committed against the rules of correct usage [of the language/
correct sentences]. Soloecism arises in two or more parts
[of language]. Barbarism, however, appears in a word, as
has been explained above. [The name] Soloecism derives from
the castle, that was once called Soloi, but is now called
Pentapolis. The people of this town went to Athens in Greece,
in order to learn the language there, and they corrupted
every word that was spoken with a false pronounciation,
and the Greeks called this error of speech SOLOECISMUS, after
the town Soloe and CISMUS, which is the 'cutting apart' or
'tearing up' in our language, because it cuts apart [interrupts]
the parts of language, when it corrupts the languages."

characters used:
a/ = "a" with a "v" attached (ligature)
@ = hooked "o"
é, = a long "e" with a "hook" underneath it.
The copy is made from Th.Krømmelbein's edition,
where there is also a 'B' version printed.
The B-version might indeed serve to clarify the
intended meaning in some places. Both manuscript
versions have been printed in non-normalized form.
That is, as close approximations to the handwritten
manuscript texts.
Note that "Greece" has been written as "girkland", where
"grikland" would seem more natural to me today.
Note also that in many places "u" has to be read as "v"
and vice versa.

On another note, it appears to me that it would be easier
to read the Old Norse text, if it was printed line by
line, and with the English translation directly underneath
each line. I think I will try to write it up like that
as well, so that the readers may verify for themselves
that the material becomes much easier to study that way.
The next thing I'd like to do, is to produce an English
translation of the next page <pagina 130>, since the material
there is relevant to some of the things we have already been
discussing on this list. Later on <pagina 132>, he goes more
into specifics, and discusses errors that he takes from
skaldic poetry. I will here quote his first example <p.132>
so that you can get an idea where the discussion is heading.
He says that in the skaldic lines:

Hringlestir gekk hraustan
herjum kunnr at gunni.

(the generous *ring-breaker'=man, who is accustomed to war,
went "hearty"(?) to battle). He then comments that
"hraustan" (tr?) ought to have been "hraustliga".
The error is that the poet ought to have used the adverbial
form "hraustliga" instead of "hraustan".

(the basic sentence may be rendered as "Maðr gekk at gunni"=
'The man went to war', where we may of course discuss if
it ought not to be 'A man went to war'. "gekk" = he went,
from "ganga", to go.) Maybe an English example might be:
"he went courageous to war", where the form
"he went courageously to war", gives a more correct English
sentence. I also wish to thank Haukur for acknowledging
the potential interest of the grammatical treatises.
I only hope that people do not find the text too diffucult.
Remember that it is what you understand that really counts.
Even if you only understand a word here and there, it still
is valuable to read the text!
Best regards,
Keth