taka á hönd e-m + láta goera

--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "xigung" <xigung@...> wrote:

> Here is mentioned the "taking by the hand".
> I wonder if it, at the time, was customary to "shake hands",
> in the same manner as is done today? In that case, why not
> write "the king shook his hand"?
> I also notice that the name "Audun" is given in dative,
> the same case as "honum". In English it would be more natural
> to use the genitive, as in "he shook Audun's hand", but here
> we have an example of a pronoun and a proper name juxtaposed both

with

> the same case. The case (dative) must be due to the standard
> expression "taka e-m í hönd" (to shake someone's hand).
> I suppose the dative may be due to the possibility of
> inserting the preposition "á", since "taka" (to take, grab)
> normally rules the accusative. But you don't "take" someone's
> hand as you would take or catch a ball or a prisoner.
> (the ball out of the air, the prisoner into the jail)
> (Grr.. May I now have my hand back, please? :-)

"Shake hands", I wonder if they did. I suppose if we're not sure
whether they shook hands or just grasped them, to "take one's hand",
or similar, might be an acceptably vague compromise. But even if it
was an anachronism you could maybe justify "shake hands" as
translating the intent and cultural meaning of the gesture.

'taka á e-u' "touch", but 'hönd' is acc., so this must be something
different. There's the idiom '[EXTERNAL BODY PART] á e-m' = "s-
one's...". But neither seems to be quite the same thing as 'taka á
hönd e-m', which is more like: kyssa á hönd e-m "kiss one´s hand [in
homage]". Also: taka í hönd e-m "join hands with s-one".

höfða, að, [höfuð], to ' head, ' but esp. used as a law term, to
sue, prosecute; h. mál, sök á hönd e-m, to bring an action against.

> >
> > Þá lét konungr gøra honum laug ok gaf honum síðan klæði,

ok er hann

> nú með honum.
> Why not simply use the English "let" here?
> i.e. The king let [the servants] prepare a bath for him.
> In fact, to me the word "caused" seems so formal here, as to
> be misplaced. Wouldn't "The king had them prepare a bath"
> sound less formal? Anyway, you decide.

I would go with "had them prepare a bath" -- to me "let" would
suggest that the bath was someone else's idea and the king just gave
them permission.

Llama Nom