Hi there Patricia,

"em" in accusative "mic" is governed by the preposition "við".
As these hurts touched/concerned him directly.
Masters (Eyvindur/Hrafnkell) are compaired as well as their men are
(Eyvind's men/Hrafnkel's men. This is a class divided society.

Thanks

Uoden

mic or mik or migh or as we spell it today mig is out of need
for figuring sound that is not to be found in Latin: the soft
guttural [root?] sound disappearing in "I" English, see it high.
Gut but Gutt See "MunnRæpa" is BullShit you digest it then you speak
it. I belive in I(gh). The Capital letter for the soft sound by my
ancestors, I reckon, is written today G as in Goose or...

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

>
> en meizl við mik ok minna manna (l. 849) - Why is 'mik' accusative

and 'minna manna' genitive?

>
>
>
> Suggest it is likely that as the subject of the ill-treatment mik

is accusative just because of that

>
> Minna Manna being given the genitive seems to be is seen as "men

of mine" and therefore they are a "possession" - well kind of

>
>
>
> sem vit eigumsk fleira illt við: (l. 853) - I can´t quite get my

head around this clause.

>
>
>
> No and neither can I - I thought it would be like a threat of

being made to exist at a lower level of "standing in the Community".

>
>
>
> Thank you Alan for your comments in my translation, especially the

wry remark that you are not a specialist in the Laws of the time, if
I had only thought more about it it would have seemed reasonable
that Hrafnkell would have been over-doing it some-what to have taken
Eyvind's wealth - since he had killed Eyvind in the first place -
Gory though - ain't it

>
> Kveðja
>
> Patricia
>