Hi James,
Thanks for your comment.

--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "James R. Johnson"
<modean52@...> wrote:

> We'd use "may have come" in the present, and "would have come" in

the past, corresponding to the Konjunktiv I and 2 of German,
respectively (in translation).

I read up on the German usage of the subjunctive in indirect
speech. It turns out, according to the grammar book I
consulted, that in official language (broadcast etc), the
subjunctive should _always_ be used when indirectly refering
to what others have said. Hence it appears as if the speaker
has no choice in the matter. In that case (no choice) it seems
reasonable to translate by what is common in English,
i.e. "He said that it was raining" (=everything in the past
indicative) But the consulted book also said that in common
German speech both modes (subjunctive and indicative) are used.
And in that case it appears to me that the speaker has a choice,
and that this presence of choice should be taken into account
when translating.

The question to ask then, is whether there is a choice
of mode available in Old Norse when speech is refered
indirectly. I do not have the answer ready, but I know
that a good place to look is in "Old Norse Syntax" by
M.Nygaard. In fact, Nygaard has quite a few paragraphs
on the uses of the subjunctive in Old Norse, and in §316
he says that the subjunctive is used in subclauses that
are stated as part of a subjunctional at-sentence, which
is added to verbs that express a) opinion or supposition,
b) statements, c) will or attempt, still d) of a comparative
sentence after opinional verbs, e) of an interrogative
subclause in the subjunctive, as well as f) of intentional
sentences.

As examples of point b) he has "Svá er sagt, at Einarr hafi
verit allra manna sterkastr ok beztr bogmaðr, er verit hafi
í Noregi" (OH 24,12). You see the subclause beginning with
"at Einarr", and after that "hafi", which is a subjunctional
form of "to have". (thus has been said, that Einar was the
strongest of all and the best archer, that has ever lived
in Norway)

Can it be then, that ON always (=invariably) uses the
subjunctive in indirect speech? In that case it seems
reasonable to ignore it when translating to English.
However, if it is not an invariable rule, then it is
reasonable to take it into account.

I will look for further examples, since I am not
completely sure if Nygaard refers to an invarable
rule here, or whether he only reports a common but
not invariable feature og ON here.

Best regards
Xigung.

> 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.)