|
That's fine Alan, thank you - I was of much the same conclusion myself - I could see
..why you disagreed with Zoega - hence my comment - why not !! I disagreed with him
..myself but did not like to say so - I am glad you said so .
I am indeed helped much by knowing if I look in future not under ó but under ú....
..instead there is a great deal more to learning Old Norse more than any other
Language I have studied it is good to have assistance
Kveðja
Patricia
-------Original Message-------
From: AThompson
Date: 17/08/2006 10:41:49
Subject: RE: [norse_course] Alan's translation Njal ch 13 part 2
Hi Patricia
LN has already explained the óheilagur => not-inviolable => touchable => not protected by law =>outlawed question. It reminds me of the game of "Tiggy-touch- wood", where you are safe (heilagur) from being "tagged" if you "touch wood", otherwise you are free game (óheilagur).
With respect to a single oath shall not become all (oaths), I took this as meaning Just because one marriage agreement turned out a certain way (in this case badly), doesnt mean that all marriage bargains will turn out the same way which I think is saying something akin to your one broken oath should not affect another.
Kveðja Alan
-----Original Message-----
Here´s my translation. I would appreciate any comments on underlined text. I hope my translation is of some use to others and have italicised bits which address questions raised by Grace and Patricia. Thank you Alan for the thought that will be most useful. Nevertheless I wish I could reconcile in my own mind the reason you make óheilagur mean outlawed - notwithstanding you agree with MMandHP, there is no suggestion of making this word to mean outlawed, in any of the dictionaries unless it is where one of them (dictionaries) says something like unholy, the Complete Sagas of the Icelanders also gives it this meaning, (outlawed) and yet I am not comfortable with it, can you help a single oath shall not become all (oaths) (disagree with Zoega here). Good - and why not - because Zoega's way of putting it seems a bit - umm - like a gloss over and I can see readily why you should disagree with it. Might we say "one broken oath should not affect another" - does that seem fair - I find this well worth thinking about and would appreciate help on this Thanks again Kveðja Patricia -- -- | |||
|
|