Hello - Douglas Hárfagri from Brazil who loves to learn languages!

I´ve noticed that my previous question is worded in such a way as to not
allow a response. I´ll re-structure my question to concern itself with just
subordinate clauses. First, I'll pretend that German inverted order, verb
placement rules, are acceptable and I'll rewrite each sentence using these
rules. Any ON conjunction that corresoponds to a German subordinating
conjunction will, itself, be taken as a subordinating conjunction - thus
indicating inverted order for the clause it introduces. You can read the
first iteration with the verb in the first or second position and compare it
with inverted order, in the second iteration, which has the verb at the end.
Between the two iterations, for each sentence, I'll attempt to indicate the
reason for inverted order. In addition, I will make both the verbs and
conjuctions bold (which may - or - maynot show up). Naturally, this tact
assumes that word order is different, in ON, within subordinate clauses, and
that German is a better starting point than English. I have NO idea how
word order should actually be in ON, so I have to work FROM the little I
know. I apologize for the mistakes that inevitably creep in (or gallop in).


The question is, then, for the sentences below, does V2 order or inverted
order more closely approach the word order proper for Old Norse? If they are
both wrong, is there some other general rule that one may follow? I am
mostly concerned with finite verb placement, but is there a typical position
for infinitives?

(1)
Nú því at er Óláfr hann maðr helgr ok góðr mjök, vill hann mjök ok oft
mæla.
(subordinate clause with subordinating conjunction því at stands at
beginning of sentence - inverted order follows)
Nú því at Óláfr hann maðr helgr ok góðr mjök er, vill hann mjök ok oft mæla.


(2)
Því segir hann mönnum illum,
(subordinate clause with subordinating conjunction því stands at beginning
of sentence - inverted order follows)
Því hann mönnum illum segir,

(3)
"hví vilið fjóra vár vega, fyrir því at séð ok hatið oss.
(fyrir því at introduces clause. V2 and inverted order look similar - but -
shouldn´t oss be last in V2?)
"hví vilið fjóra vár vega, fyrir því at oss séð ok hatið.

(4)
Seð þér oss eigi, sem erum, en sem vilið oss sjá.
(using sem as a subordinating conjunction, rather than adverb, results in
inverted order)
Seð þér oss eigi, sem erum, en sem oss sjá vilið.

(5)
Kennið sjau yðvar eigi, er, ef gerið at, er er góðr, þá eruð góðir.
Nested subordinate clauses, keeping in mind that, by at er er I´m trying to
say that which is - might look better as
Kennið sjau yðvar eigi (er (ef gerið at (er er góðr)) þá eruð góðir).
(each subordinate clause is introduced by a subordinating conjunction -
inverted order)
Kennið sjau yðvar eigi, er, ef at, er góðr er, gerið, þá góðir eruð.
(i.e., Know you seven not, that, if that, which good is, you do, then good
you are.)

(6)
Býð ek yðr yðr spyrja, ef vilið þér vánda at vera eða góða."
(again - inverted order)
Býð ek yðr yðr spyrja, ef vánda at vera eða góða þér vilið."

(the rest are simple declarative sentences)
Því næst vegr Eirikr með brandi hans Óláf hjá mönnum hans.
Flýja þeir menn Óláfs í einn skóg.
Eirikr segir, "ek em glaðr er mælir Óláfr eigi."