> One problem with including the dwarf story is the having to identify

the 'þriú níðingsverk' of the dwarves' curse later in the story. The
idea seems like a standard motive introduced for classicism's sake,
as the three works are hardly clear from the story, even if we allow
for the extra killings in U or H.

Yes, although of all the potential anomalies, that's the one I'd find
easiest to cope with, either because I can't count ;) or because there
might be some doubt for readers about what counts as a 'níðingsverk'.
If the story of acquiring the sword from the dwarves is included from
H or U, as it stands, then we'd need to follow the U-H version of
subsequent events where Arngrímr kills the king. But in U-H, he just
arrives as an invader--in which case, by the morality of this story,
it may be that the king is fair game! On the other hand, in the R
version he's the king's trusted general. So if he killed the king in
R, where no níðingsverk are mentioned, presumably that *would* be a
níðingsverk; except that in R he doesn't kill the king at all--and
doesn't have any need to: the king gives him his daughter, then
retires, then Arngrímr goes home and retires.

When trying to think of a hypothetical ideal logical composite, my
first thought was to use the trusted general status from R and combine
it with the killing from H-U, so then it's a traitorous act. But it
felt arbitrary and not well motivated. Also--on a purely aesthetic
level--it seemed to me to spoil the drama of later battles to have
this rather plodding by-the-numbers description of a battle so early
on. It would break the magnificant rhythm of R. Which is what led me
to the thought of modifying the curse slightly, so the king doesn't
have to come to a bad end.

Another thought I had about the curse that the sword would kill
someone everytime it's drawn: Maybe the pike incident marks a change
in the story from magical time, where curses apply, to historical time
where it's no longer just a story of personal vendettas but about the
whole fate of nations, and where the gods and other mythical beings no
longer appear in person. Like Passolini's film of Medea, where the
centaur later appears in fully human form. So the moment the curse
fails to work seems quite innocuous but really it signals the end of
an era. But I guess it's more likely just forgetfulness, or confusion
caused by combining elements from different sources. Then again,
Völsunga saga shows a progression from its wild and mythical opening
to a more historical/courtly/human world. I remember years ago there
was a production of Wagner shown on British television where they
progressed the costumes from ancient to modern over the course of the
operas, to symbolise that process.

Or if the pike was a person, maybe she's some kind of protective
spirit who prevents enemies from invading Reiðgotaland.

> Who is Fróðmarr?

And how many of them are there?! Turville-Petre: "In the present text
in appears that F. is the swineherd, the supposed father of Hervör.
[...] but it may be noted that the second Hervör was fostered by a
Fróðmarr jarl í Englandi and it is thus possible that the half-strophe
has been misplaced or that some other confusion has arisen." But in
other versions, the second Hervör is fostered by Ormarr. If Fróðmarr
was the thrall, her supposed father, this makes for a good bit of
drama, and fits with Hervör's embittered sarcastic nature at this
time; and if 'hon' refers to her mother, that would beg the question
of why wouldn't she find favour with the jarl. But the fact that
another Hervör-fostering jarl is called Fróðmarr seems a bit too much
of a coincidence.... This is a bit like the mysterious Sóti mentioned
by Hjálmarr. Was this the original name of Hjálmarr's companion, or
his oponant? His horse even?

> and Oddr comes across as a Christian warrior knight (riddari) who is

on a mission to exterminate heathens.

Although too restless to actually live in a Christian land himself:

Eitt sinn leitar Oddr eptir við þá Guðmund ok Sigurð, ef þeir vildi
fara á burt. Þeir segja: "Hér höfu vér svá verit, at oss hefir bezt
þótt." "Þá er hér tveimr tveggja hugr," sagði Oddr, "at ek hefi hér
svá verit, at mér hefir leiðast orðit."

> The language here is very conservative and anyone reading

it will have to know where to set tails under o/ó and e/é and where
not to.

How about in words like 'vóru' and 'nótt'; are these without tails,
with the raising of hooked-o after labials and nasals, or was that a
later development?

> siávar ... hofþafiolunni ... tialds ... fjollum

What is known about the timing of the change from falling to rising
diphthongs? And what about the First Grammarian's recommendation of
the spelling 'ea' in 'earn' / 'iarn'?

> þeirri

Books printed in normalised spelling that I've seen have variously
'þeirri' and 'þeiri'. I take it from your reconstruction that the
earliest texts have the -rr- form, like the modern language. How did
the choice of these forms vary over time?

> gørva ... reru

What is known about the timing of these sound changes, the rounding of
/e/ and unrounding. Is there a particular reason why you have 'ø' in
'gørva' and 'e' in 'reru'. Stefán Karlsson in The Icelandic Language
(trans. Rory McTurk) just mentions that "in some contexts ø was
unrounded, e.g. øxi > exi" (1.2.2), but there seems to be a lot of
variation here. Is there a system; is the unrounding limited to a
particulatr environment; or is it fairly arbitrary? It seems to
affect both hooked and unhooked ø; was there a greater tendency to
unround one or the other, or were they equally affected?

Well, that's enough questions for now. Thanks for posting this. It
raises some interesting issues.

Llama Nom