--- In norse_course@..., "Óskar Guðlaugsson" <hr_oskar@...> wrote:
> --- In norse_course@..., xigung@... wrote:
>
> > I would write as a variant:_
> > "I desire to cease. The dises that Odin
> > has sent me from Valhall are inviting me
> > into his home; Glad shall I drink ale
> > with the aesir in the high seat. All hope
> > for life is gone. Laughing I shall die.
>
> "Dises"? You're not the first one I see who, lacking an English
> cognate, simply projects one, or digs up an extremely archaic,
> long-forgotten one :) A Word like "byrnie" (= armor, ON "brynja") in
> ON kennings translations is one example...
I think I saw Susan Granquist was on the list, who has made a special
study of the "Disir" over many years. Maybe, like "Æsir" it will
one day be a valid English word, just like English has taken up
many Norse words in the past. (e.g. equipment, bag, and a host
of other examples that I *ought* to have memorized, but haven't
[yet]) But I am not sure if every one knows that the -ir ending
gives the ON plural. (well, everyone on *this* list surely knows)
In German there also is a cognate in "Idisi" (?)
> When I translate, I usually prefer to use words that educated people
> at least have a decent chance of knowing. I can't see why "dísir"
> shouldn't be translated as "maidens" or "nymphs" there. Objections?
>
My impression is that the "Disir" are not always young maidens.
(cf. the matronae cult of the lower Rhine)
> But this is a matter of taste, I guess.
>
> > "It's all happening now" becomes: "det er nu det skjer".
> > English seems to prefer the participle for something
> > that is happening in the present.
> >
> > "It is happening" -- "is" = auxiliary verb.
> > "Det skjer" -- only one verb.
>
> A valid point, Keth; but I'd appreciate if you'd make clear, to
> beginning students, when you're writing ON and when you're writing
> some other foreign language. This time, you're writing Norwegian,
but
> refer to Norse.
I am sorry. I thought every one knew the difference.
Well, let me explain that I've often noticed that the
ON syntax is often quite similar to modern Norse.
(I hope you don't mind if we call the language of the Norwegians
"Norse" -- after all, Icelandic is a pretty unanimous designation
for the language you speak in Iceland. "Norwegian" sounds a bit
too Latin for my taste)
> I hope you understand my concern that this could
cause
> confusion. We've had about 50 new members joining the past two weeks
> or so, and they wouldn't be familiar with your tendency to confuse
> beginners.
Well, that is *great* Oskar! It means that the course is
a GREAT SUCCESS! It is a difficult balance, though between
saying things that are *too* simple and things that are too
advanced.
I, for one, am glad that you see my point.
I have noticed for some time that English uses the temporal
categories not exactly the same way as in "Norse", and
I believe there are (still) many similarities in such usage
between Icelandic and Norwegian (or Danish). But I do not
have a general theoretical overview of it. I can only see
that there are differences when I look at particular examples.
Best regards
Keth