******Heill Haukur!
Heil Alfta!
Good translation and I'm glad you're with us. :-)
Your questions.
> Haukur, could you go into a little detail
All right. Think of the 'sk' ending as adding
> about the word "settusk". I read
> the material on middle voice but I still
> do not understand the word quite yet.
'themselves' to the verb.
We have the verb 'setja - setta - sett' which
means 'to put' (or 'to set'). In this case we
could have:
*Þeir settu í Færeyjum.
They put in the Faeroes.
But that doesn't really mean anything - what did
they put there? The answer is 'themselves'.
Þeir settusk í Færeyjum.
They put themselves in the Faeroes.
(= They settled in the Faroes.)
Let's take another example - from next week's text.
We have the verb 'þroska' meaning 'to grow', 'to develop'.
It is used in the middle voice here:
Þrándr [...] þroskaðisk.
Þrándr developed himself.
(= Þrándr grew up)
(This verb is almost always used in the middle voice.)
In this case the middle voice doesn't _actively_
refer to the subject. Þrándr doesnt _do_ anything
to grow up - he just grows up.
Note that Zoëga uses the somewhat younger 'st'
ending for the middle voice but I'm using the
older 'sk'. One advantage of using 'sk' is that
the relationship with the reflexive pronoun 'sik'
is more obvious.
Some verbs aquire a new unobvious meaning when
used in the middle voice.
anda - breathe
andask - die (breathe oneself out of the body?)
There are many idiomatic ways of usage but the basic
role of the middle voice in Old Norse is to make the
verb refer to the subject of its sentence.
Hope that helped a bit.
******Oh yes that was very helpful! Is the sk/st ending the common ending for the middle voice?
> The þáttr in kynþáttr threw me off a bit.
Arlie had a good translation 'kin-rope' :-)
> I thought perhaps it was connected to þáttr
> "story". The literal translation of kynþáttr
> would be "clan"?
And it is the same word as in 'þáttr; short story'.
The basic meaning of 'þáttr' is "strand".
If history is a rope it has many strands (=þættir).
******What a wonderful way of describing it! I like that very much.
> Also would you prefer a more literal translation
A literal translation makes it easier for me to pick
> or one that is in more normalized English or both?
> Perhaps a very literal translation followed by a
> more normalized version?
out what you've misunderstood and thus to help you.
Providing an idiomatic translation as well doesn't hurt.
Kveðja,
Haukur
******Excellent. I will do that then.
far vel!
-Alfta