On Tuesday 14 May 2002 10:03, Lazarus wrote:

> I like that you've included areas for notes and the translation of others.
>
> It may be helpful if you listed the names alphabetically.

Yes, that is useful. I actually did create a little Javascript function which
did that. I then copied and pasted to get the page I now have. I may try to
clean up the Javascrip and make it so the table can be sorted in the order
appearing in the Eddas. I believe Grimnismál is different from Gylfaganning.
Some of the names come from elsewhere.

> I found it hard to read and certianly hard to find specific names.

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~hattons/asatru/odin-names.html

Is that any better? I'll work on style after I get the content more fleshed
out.

> I find some of Hollander's notes confusing. How he got from the literal
> translation of the name to some of his own notations is baffling. I'm sure
> he had his reasons, I just wish he explained it somewhere.
> EG: according to my dictionary:
> Hár = lit. "high" but LH claims it means "One-Eyed"

He actually argued it was some kin of homonym.

> Hárbarð = lit. "high-beard" but LH claims it means "Grey-Beard" which
> doesn't make a lot of literal sense because going by his own translation
> 'Hárbarð' should mean "One-Eyed-Beard"

Greybeard is a common one for Hárbarð. I suspect Zoëga's dictionary is
somewhat incomplete. I have used Gordon's _Introduction to Old Norse_ at
times, and found words not in Zoëga.

> Most likely the term 'Hár' has come to mean anyone with only one eye and
> 'Hárbarð' has since come be a word for anyone with a grey beard, but those
> are not literal.
>

One thing I have come to realize in all this is that these names can often
mean very different things according to subtelties of connotation. For
example "glad of war" can be taken to mean Óðin favors war. Glad in war may
simply mean victorious. I also find the connotations give to Óðin's names
which make him sound 'evil' are probably inaccurate. That is, Óðin should
not be though of as a worker of evil against his own. Nor should he be seen
as a representation of evil forces. This is a modern interpretation which is
way over emphasized, and probably a result of 'Christianized' thinking.

Steven