--- In norse_course Gerald McCharg wrote:
> Anyhow, here's the full version:
>
I hope you don't mind if I add some comments.
All in all, I think your translation looks close to perfect.
There are only a few minor points I'd like to mention,
not to criticize your translation, but because it might
be of general interest.
> Kømr nú þessi fregn fyrir Hrólf konung ok kappa hans upp í
kastalann,
> News of this now came to King Hrolf and his champions up in the
castle,
C: You say "came", but the text has kømr.
> at maðr mikilúðligr sé kominn til hallarinnar ok hafi drepit einn
hirðmann hans,
> that a man of imposing appearance had come to the hall and killed
one of his retainers,
C: You translate 'sé kominn' by "had come".
But 'sé' is 3rd sg. present subjunctive.
Hence "has come" or "has allegedly come" would
presumably be better. (I added 'allegedly' because
English lacks the present subjunctive - or does it?
Can you say "he have come" as an English form of
the subjunctive?)
> ok vildu þeir láta drepa manninn. Hrólf konungr spurðisk eptir,
> and they wanted to have the man killed. Kinf Hrolf enquired about
this,
>
> hvárt hirðmaðrinn hefði verit saklauss drepinn. 'Ðví var næsta'
sogðu þeir.
> had the retainer who was killed, been guiltless? 'It was very close
to this' they said
C: I find "if" for 'hvárt' in this context. Or perhaps "whether"
is a better variant. Hence more literally: "King Hrolf enquired
whether the man perhaps had been killed without cause".
Here I have also added "perhaps" in order to take the subjunctive
(hefði) into account. Also, "without cause" seems better to me
than "innocent" or "guiltless". This is because 'sak' does not
mean "guilt", but rather "cause" or "matter".
'næsta' as adverb, I would translate by "almost".
> Kómusk þá fyrir Hrólf konung öll sannindi hér um. Hrólf konungr
sagði þat skyldu fjarri, at drepa skyldi mannin -
> Then all the truth concerning this came before the king. King Hrolf
said that they should be far from this, that the man should be
killed -
C: I wonder what the declination of 'sannendi' is.
It seems to be exceptional in many ways, because it
is sometimes said to be a feminine, but more often a neutrum.
I find forms such as 'til sannenda' and 'með sannendum'.
Also, the forms 'kómu' and 'öll' indicate a plural.
The next sentence is a bit difficult, although the meaning
is clear as you have rendered it. 'þat' may be the English
conjunction "that", but also the pronoun. What I read is
(literally) "King Hrolf said they should far from that,
that one should kill the man". i.e. twice "should", but
the first time in 3rd plural, and the second time in 3rd
singular. Somewhat strange ! I therefore went back to
the web page, and relocated the sentence in the form:
{Hrólfr konungr sagði þat skyldi fjarri, at drepa skyldi manninn.}
Interestingly 'manninn' is with two n's now (cf. the text
quoted by you above), and also, it says "þat skyldi" now,
whereas you have "þat skyldu".
I think perhaps twice 'skyldi' is the more correct edition?
For now it agrees with the Danish translation:
[Kong Rolf sagde, at det skulde være langt fra, at man skulde dræbe
Manden.]
(king Hrolf said, that it should be far from, that one should kill
the man.)
- Amazing how well Danish fits English! You can even keep the word
order the same. -
And so the subjects for "should" are "it" and "one".
(not "they" and "one")
The problem with the ON text is that it seems to lack an infinitive
here. I have 'vera' in mind. (= to be)
So if a slight tentative "improvement" is allowed, it would be:
"Hrólfr konungr sagði þat skyldi *vera* fjarri, at drepa skyldi
manninn." (I hope I haven't molested the ON sentence)
Q: Is it common to drop 'vera' in sentences of this type?
>
> 'Hafi þit hér illan vanda upp tekit, at berja saklausa menn beinum;
er mér í því óvirðing,
> You two have taken up a bad practice, to strike innocent men with
bones; there is disgrace for me in this,
>
> en yðr stórr skömm, at gøra slíkt. Hefi ek jafnan rott um þetta aðr,
> and great shame on you, to do such a thing. I have always spoken
about this before,
>
C: 'jafnan' adverb, is perhaps better translated as "regularly"
or "often", than as "always".
> ok hafi þit at þessu engan gaum gefit, ok hygg ek at þessi maðr
muni ekki alllítill fyrir sér,
> and you have given no heed to this, and I think that this man will
not be a weakling
C: The verb 'hafa' occurs frequently here. For my own sake,
since I don't know it all by heart, I'll try to make a list
of its forms:
hafa/hef,hefr,hefr,höfum,hafið,hafa/ (pres. ind.)
/hafa,hafir,hafi,hafim,hafið,hafi/(pres. opt.)
/hafða,hafðir,hafði,höfðum,höfðuð,höfðu/(pret. ind.)
/hefða,hefðir,hefði,hefðim,hefðið,hefði/(pret. opt.)
(some of these I did not find, and so I had to construct them;
I hope the logic is correct)
Thus, in the above text, we now see the form "hafi þit",
which should refer to the 2nd dualis (=you two), but why
does it use the singular verb form 'hafi'?
At any rate, the verb indicates a subjunctive here.
. . . . .
AHA! Here I found the solution to my self-posed question.
Adolf Noreen (1884, p. 180) writes:
"In der 2.pl. fehlt regelmässig das auslautende -ð
der endung -eð, -ið, wenn pron. þit 'ihr zwei', þér
'ihr' unmittelbar folgen, und auch sonst nicht selten,
wenn das folgende wort mit þ anlautet,"...
In other words, it *ought* to have been "ok hafið þit
at þessu engan gaum gefit"; but then the last -ð of
'hafið' became absorbed by the þ of the following 'þit'.
> er þér hafið nú á leitat; ok kallið hann til mín svá at ek viti
hverr hann er.'
> who you have attacked; and now call him to me so that I may know
who he is'.
>
> Böðvarr gengr fyrir konung ok kveð hann kurteisliga. Konung spyrr
hann at nafni.
> Bothvarr went before the king and greeted him courteously. The king
asked him his name.
C: He "goes before the king and greets him", present tense.
>
> 'Hattargriða kalla mik hirðmenn yðar, en Böðvarr heiti ek.'
Konungr mælti,
> 'Hott's Protector your retainers call me, but my name is Bothvarr.'
The king said.
C: I am a bit uncertain about the meaning of the English
word "retainer". The dictionary says it means someone who
is a servant in a household. But the way I conceive of the
Old Norse 'hirð', I see more of a small army unit, "courtmen"
perhaps. The word "retinue" also comes to mind, but that might
be exactly the same as "retainers"?
>
> 'Hverjar botr viltu bjóða mér fyrir hirðmann minn?' Boðvarr
segir, 'Til þess gørði hann, sem hann fekk.'
>
> 'What recompense will you offer me for my retainer?' Bothvar
said, ' He deserved what he got.'
>
> Konungr mælti, 'Viltu vera minn maðr ok skipa rúm hans?' Boðvarr
segir,
> The king said, ' Will you be my man and take his place?' Bothvar
said,
>
> 'Ekki neita ek at vera ýðar maðr, ok munu vit ekki skiljask svá
búit, vit Höttr,
> 'I do no not refuse to be your man, but as things are, we will not
be parted, Hott and I,
C: I see that you have translated 'svá búit' by "as things are",
which corresponds well to Zoëga's "as matters stand", which is
also what Byock uses. The Danish translation, on the other hand,
uses a "but I will therefore in no way be separated from Hött".
'búit' derives from 'búa'.
To me the phrase is sufficiently vague to be of some interest,
especially since it is used quite a few times in King Hrolf's
Saga. Many times it is used upon departure. Perhaps a simple
"thus" would be a more elegant translation?
('búa' is said to have been intended in the sense of 'to prepare'
here) Another possible tranlation might be "like that".
> ok dveljask nær þér báðir, heldr en þessi hefir setit; elligar vit
förum brott baðir.'
> and will stay nearer to you more than this one was placed,
otherwise we both go away.'
>
> Konungr mælti, ''Eigi sé ek at honum somd, en ek spara ekki mat við
hann,'
> The king said, 'I see no honour in him, but I will not grudge him
food.'
C: Here is a difficulty if one associates 'spara' with "to save"
(something). "I will not save food for him" sounds like he'd
come home to empty plates. But you have the right solution,
even though "grudge" carries an aspect of resentment, which
is not present in the ON text - I think. So I'd like to suggest
a more neutral "keep": "I will not keep the food from him".
I hope some of these remarks were of interest.
Best regards
Xigung.