LN:

>> og höfum votta við
>> MM & HP: "Let us now call in witmesses."

>> 'votta' is the accusative plural of 'vottur' "witness". To find

it in in Old Norse dictionies, see 'váttr' (Zoega lists the phrases:
hafa vátta við, nefna vátta). The preposition 'við' here has the
sense of "present" (as in "here with us").


Alan:

> I treated `votta' / `vátta' as the verb `to witness, affirm,

attest' based on a construction equivalent to the English `to have
to do something, ie "hafa + infinitive" I take it hafa cannot be
used in this way in ON / Icelandic?

> Why isn´t `við' simply the 1st person plural pronoun, as in `við

höfum'?


Have a look at these results from a Google search for "votta við":

Ekki er þörf votta við lögbókandagerðir (modern)
Hvað þurfum vér nú framar votta við? (biblical)
hvað þurfum við nú framar votta við? (biblical)

So this 'við' appears with no plural/dual verb, and when it is used
with a plural/dual 1st person verb, the pronoun can appear in its
normal position. I'm not sure if 'hafa' can be used as in English
like that. Zoega (11) has some idioms with 'hafa at', but none of
them correspond to English "have to".

hafa at selja "to have on sale"
hafa at varðveita "to have in keeping"
lög hafið þér at mæla "you are right"

But 'eiga at' + inf. can mean "to have to", see Zoega (7).

eiga hendr sínar at verja "to have to defend oneself"

LN