Ketill reit:

> 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).

No no, not at all :) The dualis is just "vit". Then there is a
preposition "við". However, later ON has some lenition going on,
so "vit" > "við"; the latter is the MI and MFarose form, as well as
the probable ancestor of Scandinavian "vi".

The preposition "við" should not be associated much with
English "with"; the English word is usually rendered by "með". Why is
this troubling you, Keth, when Scandinavian has "ved" and "med",
working practically the same as in ON?

> Okay, that sounds more like it!
> I interpreted "við" as "með".
> I then found out that there were far more references to "vega at e-

m"

> than to "vega með e-m". (or should it be e-n?)

"vega" = kill, slay, defeat
"vega at" + dat = attack, attempt to despatch (phrasal verb)

but

"vega með" is not a phrasal verb, and thus not an independent
semantic unit; it merely means "vega" + "með", e.g. "Óláfr vegr
manninn með brandi." (Olaf kills the man with a sword)

Óskar