Hi Llama Nom !

As I was contemplating this earlier today, I realized that
Germans say "jemandem die Hand drücken", and in Skandinavia
they also speak about "et håndtrykk". Apparently it is only
the English who "shake" hands. Perhaps this reflects slightly
different historical customs ?

What about other cultures? In Latin I find the expression
"iungere dextras", which might be described as 'a joining
of right hands'. (We still use our right hand for the
handshake)

The expression was also used by ancient authors, such as
Livius, who in his 7th book, Ab Urbe Condita, writes:

" and that it was Manlius who was seized by the conspirators and made
their leader, after which they marched out to a distance of four miles
and entrenched themselves; also that it was not their leaders who made
the first suggestions of concord, but what happened was that as the
two armies advanced towards each other prepared for action the
soldiers exchanged mutual greetings, and as they drew nearer grasped
each other's hands and embraced one another, and the consuls, seeing
how averse the soldiers were from fighting, yielded to circumstances
and made proposals to the senate for reconciliation and concord. "
( salutationem factam et permixtos dextras iungere ac complecti inter
se lacrimantes milites )

So it seems as if "shaking hands" is an old Roman custom. Only that
they probably didn't literally "shake" each other's hands.

Well, that is what I was able to find out as far as it goes.
I don't know whether the Greeks also used this custom.


Vale,
Xigung.

--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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