Hi Arlie!
Yes, I agree that it was a bit on the difficult side.
It is just that when I looked for sentences in "Gunnlaugs
saga ormstungu", I found I could read everything easy
as cake, which was a bit frustrating, because usually
when I look at ON texts, there are plenty of words I
don't know. I therefore took the next saga I had, which
is something called "Clarus Saga" and was published in
a scientific edition by a Swede called G. Cederschiöld
1874. Unfortunately I cannot read the introduction very well,
because it is all in Latin. But any way, my impression
is that Cederschiöld has here followed the original
spelling that you find in the medieval manuscripts.
As you noted, it is a little different from what one
often calls "normalized" Old Norse, which I understand
means to change the spelling of the old manuscripts
so that it becomes very close to the modern Icelandic spelling.

The reason why I use a comma for the hooked-o, is because
there is also a hooked-e in these manuscripts. And I think
one best approximates the historical form by writing a comma
after the letter. "v" is of course the same as "u", wherever
such an identification makes sense. Also note the repeated
vowels that denote lengthened vowels. In the book these
double vowels are printed partly on top of each other.
Apart from these features, I cannot see much else that
would be difficult.

--- In norse_course@..., Arlie Stephens <arlie@...> wrote:
> Hi Keth,
>
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 05:43:55PM -0000, keth@... wrote:
>
> > I looked through some saga texts. But I felt many of the
> > sentences were too easy. Here is one that is a little bit
> > more difficult than average. But NOTE : I think it is best
> > if you do not use a dictionary. (that's cheating)
> > Okay, here is the sentence :
>
> Right off the face of it, if this is a single sentence, it's way
> too hard. IMO, anyway. Far too long for a single sentence.

It was certainly more than a sentence. But I felt that much was
needed to give the text some kind of context.

But Arli (!) . . . :), if you sleep on it a night, I am sure
you will be able to see some glimmerings of light !
That is what happened to me. Yesterday I honestly didn't
understand anything. But as I look at it now, I see it
is beginning to dawn on me. Here are some tips. (and if
I make an error, all the better, for then we shall have
something to discuss). Here is the first word you can make
sense of: "skiot". All you need to remember is the word
for "shooting" and then remember that shooting is always fast
(fast like a bullet, we say), and then recall that "skiot"
could mean "fast/speedy" here.

Then go to "verða": this clearly is the verb. (=to be)
"Her" = 'here'; that is standard.

Now look at the 1st sentence again.
It says "Here are fast ..."

Then look for words that can complete this half sentence.
"vm skipti". Here you recognize the English word "to shift".
"um skipti" will then be "to shift about". Aha! It means
"changes". So our sentence now reads:
"Here are fast going to be some changes..."
(NB I'm not using a dictionary)

Once you get this (the beginning), the rest will start
to come much more easily.
"hrið": Here remember this as something to do with
hores-riding. And that nightmares can ride you too.
Also at childbirth women get these cramps that are
somewhat similar (periodic). Then, as your eye
follows the text somewhat further, you see a word for
"sunshine". Aha! You say, "hrið" means the opposite
of sunshine, and so it is a shower of bad weather.

And so we now have succeeded in understanding the whole
first sentence:
"Here are going to be some quick changes...
just like bad weather comes against pleasant sunshine,
or like cross winds come against a sailing ship before
the fair wind comes..."

Something like that....
(Thus far I did not use a dictionary)
Then continue to read the rest.
But NB, and this is important: Try NOT to use
a dictionary, until you have really tried very
hard, reading the whole piece several times
over a period of several days. The probability
is that you will then have understood it all
by yourself without any external help.
Then afterwards you can use the dictionary
and the grammar book to "fine tune" the translation.

But, as Gordon pointed out, one should also try to
read without translating. Just try to see what images
the words evoke. Try to see "hrið" as a terrible snowstorm,
but also as the throes that happen to a woman in child-birth.
Try to see "blið" as someone smiling.. etc..
Then after a while you will see that you do not need to have
exact definitions for everything, because such texts are often
also self-explanatory.

I believe Gordon has a very important point here.
Word by word translation (books in hand) is way too slow
a method for ever learning the language. (life is too
short). And so one has to try to reach a level of maturity
where things begin to make sense without external aids.
And one is usually a lot closer than one thinks !

But now that I've spent that much time on this rather
random piece of text, it would be really nice if
some Icelander (Haukur?) would rewrite the text in
Icelandic spelling. And perhaps give a few clues.
(My own ideas may have been partly erroneous)

The best to you!
KeÞ.

>
> It's also spelled in an interesting manner. Not one of the
normalized
> spellings I've seen. In particular, I see a lot of instances of V
where
> the word seems to me to require U. You've also got some special
character
> apparantly being represented by the english comma (,) If you are
going to
> use transliterations like this, please as a minimum provide a
transliteration
> key. (I see the comma always after o; is this your transliteration
of the
> o-with-tail, more commonly represented as o-with-2-dots?)
>
> > Her verða skiot vm skipti, þilik
> > sem grimm hrið kiemi moti bliðv solskini,
> > eðr þvert veðr kiemi at skipi siglanda aaðr
> > goðan byr; ok betr maa hon nv kallaz
> > Severa enn Serena; þviat skirleikinn
> > kastaði hon, þviat hon tekr ser þann
> > vargham, at her aa ofan skemmir hon hann
> > með sva fo,llnum orðum: "Se her," segir
> > hon, "leiðr skaalkr ok full farri! hvilikr
> > þv vart, ok huersv þu drott þinn flatan
> > fot v syniv vt af þinv moðvr hvsi, meðan
> > þv kvnner æigi sva mickla hoftyft, at þv
> > me,ttir þer skamm laust mat [at munni
> > bera hia o,ðrv goðv folki. Ok nu i samri
> > stvnd verð vti, vaandr þorari! af þvisa
> > herbergi með o,llvm þeim fo,ntvm ok ribb-
> > alldvm, er þv drott her inn, sva framt
> > sem þv villt v skemðr vera!"
> >
> > Please read it carefully 2 or 3 times,
> > and make up a list of the words you
> > are unsure about. Maybe you can also
> > state what you *think* this is all
> > about.
> >
> > (that way we can find out what the right level is)
>
> Hmmm... I'm getting approx 1 word in 3. That's without a dictionary.
> And without doing too much compensation for your odd transcription
> (e.g. "mickla" has letters that don't occur in OI; I suspect "sva"
> should be "svá" ... both _might_ be words I know with unusual
> transcriptions, or might be some other word that I'm not familiar
> with.)
>
> Anyway, this is well beyond my _reading_ level, probably within my
> _translating_ level (with dictionary). (There's a big difference.)
>
> --
> Arlie
>
> (Arlie Stephens
arlie@...)