Re: [norse_course] Re: Auđun 'konunginn'-trouble

Hello Annika,

your idea sounds interesting, I didn't even think about it. We should
really check this case in the literature on ON. I'll try to do my best, at
least the university I am at also has related literature on Germanic
languages. Though I think I have very little chance to find some
reasonable material on this very case, Hungary is after all not a
paradise for Old Norse philologist ;-). The only Scandinavian Studies
Centre of Hungary is at Budapest's ELTE university.

Best wishes,

Imre

aka Emmeríkr

- that's my new "Viking" name that I have created from 'Emmerich' (the
German original of "Imre").


Annika Larla Evensen McKibbin <runadis@...> írta:

> hello imre
>
> a wild guess: it might be that the language in this way distinguishes

different functions of 'the king' in the text. Without the definite article it
might relate primarily to his office as king, as a general title with
general functions. With the definite article it might be making a special
point of him as a person whom is also king... Or the other way around?

>
> Annika
>
> llama_nom <600cell@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Imre,
>
> This is a very ingenious idea, and one that hadn't occured to me.
> I'm not so sure it works though, but I'm not really in a position to
> judge, given what Haukur has said about editorial leeway in the
> matter of abbreviations. I tried searching in an online text of
> Hrólfs saga kraka, for konungr, konung, konungrinn and konunginn,
> and found examples of the indefinite accusative 'konung' used of an
> already introduced person, e.g. Chapter 18 Svipdagr ríđr fyrir
> konung "S. rode in front of THE king"; 19 ok kvađ konung mega ţat
> sjá "and said that THE king could see"; 22 Svipdagr gekk ţegar fyrir
> konung "S. immediately went before the king". Two of these are
> governed by a preposition, but one is the direct object of a verb,
> albeit in an accusative + infinitive construction. There are also
> plenty of instances of the definite nominative konungrinn.
>
> (I'm not counting instances where 'konung' appears with a proper
> name, or with other demonstrative.)
>
> Come to think of it, that one's only attested in post-medieval
> manuscripts. Looking now at Hervarar saga, the R version, which I
> think dates from the 15th c., I find no examples of 'konunginn', and
> only two of 'konung':
>
> Hjörvarđr biđr konung segja skjótt "H. asked THE king to answer
> quickly"
>
> Nú grunar konung, hverr mađrinn mun vera. "Now the king suspects

who

> this man must be." (But the verb 'gruna' takes accusative for the
> logical subject, so here 'konung' might be considered the subject,
> in spite of its accusative form.)
>
> Völsunga saga is preserved in a manuscript from around 1400, and

the

> text is dated to the 13th century. It contains lots of examples of
> the nominative 'konungrinn', but as far as I can see only one
> accusative 'konung' where English would have a definite article, e.g.
>
> Randverr heimti konung á tal "Randver sought an audience with the
> king"
>
> But for all I know these are the exceptions. Maybe it would be
> better to start with a proper critical edition and try to establish
> just what the rules are are some particular time in history,
> although even then the composite nature of so many of these texts
> and their scribal history could complicate things. Or is there a
> really obvious rule that we're overlooking?
>
> Llama Nom
>
>
> PS. Can anyone recommend any good general books on Old Norse
> syntax? Preferrably not to specialised or theoretical, but with
> lots of practical detail.
>
>
>
>
> --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, IK <hobbi-germanista@...>
> wrote:
>
> > >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
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/norse_course/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!