It now seems obvious that "E" is after me again.

>Old: sér, ok þótti sá beztr kostr á Rangárvöllum.
>Mod: sér, og þótti sá beztur kostur á Rangárvöllum.
>
>If the teachers can explain to us how on earth we can
>learn the language of the "Old" line shown above, without,
>at the same time, learning the language of the "Mod" line,
>we would be grateful indeed.
>
>I'm sure they can glibly talk their way out of this, and
>that I will admire them even more for their brilliant
>intellects, but ... I say no more. (And NO! - I am NOT
>interested in Keth's silly opinions on this particular
>matter.) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I believe I preceded you in stating that going from the "new Icelandic"
saga editions to Old Norse, was merely a matter of a few simple
substitution rules, such as you have exemplified above, to wit:

-ur --> -r, að --> at, ... etc...

It is, however, also a fact, that for someone like me, who is from
mainland Scandinavia, (which you are not) it is MUCH easier to
read a genuine ON saga, where it matters little whether the spelling
uses -r or -ur, than a modern Icelandic newspaper story. And this is
a fact which your (-)characterisation cannot change.

In another post you also wrote:

>I myself
>am simply a well-meaning Icelander, whose Old Norse is good enough
>for me to sigh loudly whenever Keth writes a sentence in Old Norse.

^^^^ ^^^^^^
Why not simply point out the error?

I am here to learn.

Remember that the ON sentence that you yourself sent to the list
was also a bit strange:

"Eysteinn er feigr. Vega munum við hann."

Though I now realize that in ON "we" dualis/vit MAY also be written
as "við". But to me it makes more sense to separate the two meanings
of "við" ("we two" and "with"), by using the two different spellings
"vit" (we two) and "við" (with).

Why not take the challenge and turn error into something positive?
(such as explaining the difference between við and með, and giving
some examples of when these two prepositions take the accusative
and when the take the dative)

Keth