Heill Dan,

> Just a quick question. In Evans' text on Hávamál, he suggests "sældu" for
> "seldu". Does this make more sense, as he claims?

It might. The first sentence of that strophe is somewhat obscure.
The phrase 'nema upp' regarding the runes is also not entirely clear.

That's one of the troubles of the translator. Some strophes are clear
to any child. Here's one:

Ungr var ek forðum,
fór ek einn saman,
þá varð ek villr vega;
auðigr þóttumst,
er ek annan fann,
maðr er manns gaman.

The text is complete, there is no obscure word here, the syntax is clear as daylight,
the metre is perfect, the meaning jumps out at you.

Compare this with:

Bú er betra
þótt lítit sé
halr er heima hverr.

The metre has collapsed.


Nótt verðr feginn
sá er nesti trúir
skammar eru skips rár
hverf er haustgríma.

Word for word very clear - but it still doesn't make any sense;
each line seems unconnected to the next.


Fannka ek mildan mann
eða svá matargóðan,
at ei væri þyggja þegit,
eða síns féar
svági
at leið sé laun, ef þægi.

There is obviously a word missing in the manuscript.


While we can expect translators to handle obscure strophes in
many different ways the least we can demand is that they translate
those strophes that _are_ lucid correctly.

Kveðja,
Haukur