Thanks LN. Comments inserted

 

Kveðja

Alan

 

-----Original Message-----
From: norse_course@yahoogroups.com [mailto:norse_course@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of llama_nom
Sent: Wednesday, 4 May 2005 4:24 PM
To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [norse_course] Nú brýtr þú ok týnir skipinu ok fénu (conditional indicative?)

 

--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "AThompson" <athompso@...>

wrote:

 

> ok eru víða øroefi ok hætt skipum.

> And (the) harbourless coasts (nom. plural?) are wide and

dangerous/destructive to ships.

 

 

I think 'víða' must be an adverb here, since 'øroefi' is neuter

(nom. pl., as you say), so maybe: "and there are harbourless-coasts

widely/in-many-places and [it is] dangerous to ships."

 

Agree that 'víða' is probably an adverb meaning ‘in many places’ (I was so intent on making it an adjective that I refused to accept that it was an adverb) but suggest that ‘hætt’ is still strong nom. pl. adj in predicative position: so instead: “and harbourless-coasts are [found]

in-many-places (or “are widely [found]”) and [are] dangerous to ships.”

 

> Nú brýtr þú ok týnir skipinu ok fénu, lítt sér þat þá á,

> Now (should) you wreck (subj) and lose (presumably subj) the ship

and the possessions (sg), that (will be) little seen (indic but why

not subj?) then (there will be then little to show)

 

 

Now it gets confusing.  'brýtr' is indicative, isn't it?  The

subjunctive 'brjótir' crops up soon.  'týnir' could be either, but

as the verbs either side of it are both indicative, I'm guessing it

is too.  Granted, Gwyn Jones has "Now should you be wrecked and lose

both ship and lading, there will be little to show that you have met

King Svein...", but look at the way this version with modern

spelling is punctuated.

 

http://www.snerpa.is/net/isl/audun.htm

 

I don't know if this is the right way to think of it, but could it

be sort of rhetorical and concerned? "Now you're going to [go and]

get [yourself] shipwrecked [aren't you].  There won't be much to

show THEN that you've (subj.) met..."

 

Another way of looking at it, which I considered, is:

 

The king says: “Now [imagine/consider this possible scenario, Auðun]: You wreck your ship and lose your possessions; then [one] sees little to [prove] that you have met King Sveinn and given him a treasure”

 

Agree that  'brýtr' and 'týnir' are indicative and I wouldn’t have tried to twist it otherwise otherwise except for 'hafir fundit' in the final clause. I guess it’s possible that the writer got caught up in the conditional meaning of the sentence and slipped into the use of the subjunctive even though the grammatical construction required the indicative. This would only mean a single slip up, compared to the less likely double slip of using 'brýtr' and 'sér' instead of 'brjótir' and 'sjáir'.

 

Or would it be better to just treat it as if 'brýtr' has the force

of a subjunctive, if not the form?  The final subjunctive HAFIR I

guess is there because it involves a perception that won't take

place.  But is it the negative quality that causes this, or the fact

that it's a perception?  I wonder if indicative would be prefered if

he was saying "then it certainly will be seen that you've met..." 

Or would the fact that it's describing some hypothetical person's

perception be enough to demand the subjunctive?  So many questions...

 

> at þú hafir fundit Svein konung ok gefit honum gørsimi.

> that you have (subj!) met King Sveinn and given him a treasure.

 

> ok ertu þá enn eigi félauss með öllu,

> and you are (will be - pres as future) then still not completely

penniless

 

> þótt þú brjótir skipit, ef þú fær haldit þessu.

> even though you (should) wreck (subj) the ship, if you are able to

hold (on to) this.

 

Yes: 'hafir' and 'brjótir' sunjunctive, but 'þú fær' indicative! 

(Google 'ef þú fær' 24; 'ef þú fáir' just 3, all in subordinate

clauses with 'að'.  Similar statistics for 'geta').

 

For 'hafir' see above. On 'brjótir' and 'fær' there is no question that they are subjunctive and indicative respectively: 'brjótir' because it is within a concessive ‘þótt’ clause and 'fær' because it is in a real conditional 'ef' clause (as I indicated in my comments to Patricia) and as you identify in your follow up reference to Einarsson. I used Einarsson in preparing my feedback to Patricia and I was seeing the 'Nú brýtr þú ok týnir skipinu ok fénu…' sentence as an example of the Imaginary Conditional, only 'brýtr' and 'sér' would not behave as I wanted them to.

 

Llama Nom

 

 

 

 

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

In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.

At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!

http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/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: 266.11.2 - Release Date: 2/05/2005