Sćll Alan,


I am new to ON, but I think I have a solution to the problem:

>Throughout this story ‘konungr’ appears countless times without a
>definite article where, in English, one would normally be used; then
>out of the blue, the article is used in: ‘Ok nú er hann sá konunginn.’
>Can anyone give a reason why it would be used on this particular
>occasion?

As I have seen so far ON seems to be quite consequent in using
indefinite form when referring to a person – who is already introduced
to the reader - by his title. As in that part of the text that you have
translated the ’konungur’ is in definite form only when it becomes the
object (i.e. transformed to accusative) of the sentence:

'Ok nú er hann sá konunginn.'

Otherwise the word 'konungr' appears in nominative or dative.
May be using indefinite form when referring to an already introduced
person as the acting person seems to be ok in ON, but as soon as it
becomes the objective of the action of an other person it must be
clarified - by adding definite article - that it is the aforementioned
person and not someone new, i.e. 'He saw the king [that we've been
talking about]' and not a new king was seen. May be ON sees this time
better to use definite form, feeling that indefinite form could be
confusing.


Anyway I am may not be right, one might give a different explanation
too.

Greetings,

Imre Kovacs
Hungary