Hi there,

"ViðHafa" is adhibit or practice. >admit

Vera við: be at present. > have them at present?

"Vitni" we use more as an eyewitness
"Votta" is to confirm so "Vottar" are they who confirm like
testifiers, deponents,.... or by looking over contracts.

I understand it as they will have use of testifiers.

thanks Uoden

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