----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 2:07 PM
Subject: [norse_course] Re: Jed - Boðvarr
- 2nd instalment
Hi Gerald,
You wrote:
--- 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.
A
Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.
Homepage: http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/
To
escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail
to:
norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use
of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.