Sælir

 

A normal expression in Modern Icelandic for "to shake somebody by the hand, shake hands” is heilsa (e-m) / heilsast með handabandi; literally “greet somebody / each other with a handshake” and handaband was certainly an Old Norse word so I would expect them to have used the same expression. Zoega translates it as shaking of hands, but more stictly I think it may be a binding of hands, suggesting that the practice of at least clasping hands as a form of greeting did exist, if not necessarily an actual shaking.

 

My Modern Icelandic dictionary has takast í hendur (note reflexive and plural) for shake hands, which to me suggests a greeting of equals. While Zoega translates taka í hönd e-m, which corresponds to the phrase in Auðun, as to shake hands, I am inclined to think that the Gordon gloss of to take by the hand is better, since what we have here is not a meeting of equals, rather it is a powerful king taking a poor man by the hand or in hand, as a caring gesture of bringing him under his protection.

 

I think also that honum Auðuni is simply emphasising that him is Auðun. There are earlier examples of this sort of emphasis in the text. Line 4, Auðun var ok þar, ok starfaði fyrir honum Þóri.

 

With respect to my translation Then (the) king caused to make him a bath I will re-emphasise that my translations are intended to be as literal a translation of the text as I can make it, with the aim of indicating each the accidence, syntax and meaning within the text. If I was presenting a modern English translation I would definitely refashion it as something like Then the king had a bath prepared for him but that involves changing an infinitive form of the verb into a past participle.

 

Kveðja

Alan

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: llama_nom [mailto:600cell@...]
Sent: Friday, 15 April 2005 3:20 AM
To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [norse_course] 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->

What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?

Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!

http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/79vVAA/GP4qlB/TM

--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

 

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 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:

    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.11 - Release Date: 14/04/2005