--- "llama_nom" wrote:
>
> In the glossary to his edition of Skáldskaparmál, Anthony Faulkes
> lists it as "Óðre(y)rir ... perhaps for Óðrørir or Óð(h)rrir." He
> writes that the most usual spelling in the manuscripts is Óðrerir,
> "occuring only once with y" (Óðreyrir).
Interestingly, Finnur Jónsson notes in the Lex. Poet.:
"hds. skriver, -rerir, -re,rir, rærir, reyrir, hvilket alt
kun betyder rerir eller rørir; næppe hrrir".
("mss. speelings -rerir, -re,rir, rærir, reyrir, all of which
can only mean rerir or rørir; hardly hrrir")
We have here a typical example if a scholarly crux on which
the academics will never agree. And sorry to say, we will most
certainly never know the truth of the matter ...
> 140...ok ek drykk of gat and a draught obtained
> ins dýra mjaðar of the precious mead,
> ausinn Óðreri. drawn from Oðrærir.
>
> Do these lines definitely suggest that Óðrerir is the vessel?
One might assume so, but I think it is at least conceivable
that "ausinn Óðreri" might be parallel to "drykk", in which
case we would have "and I obtained a drink of the precious
mead, the ladled Óðrerir". Óðreri would then be acc. rather
than dat. I'm not saying this is in any way more likely than
the usual interpretation, just that it is formally possible.
> so that an improved reading
> in Óhrrir, rejuvenating potion, is unnecessary.
Indeed it is - and it sounds practically ludicrous
to me! Do you know who came up with this originally?
> loss of the 'h' the original meaning might have become less obvious
One thing puzzles me in the "h-loss" theory here - I don't see
the reason why this 'h' should be lost in Iceland, any more than
the 'h' in "gullhringr", or an adjective like "óðharðr". Norse
forms without initial 'h' would have been understood perfectly
well in Iceland in the time of Snorri (and still are). It is
obvious to us that English "ring" is the same as "hringur", and
that Danish "röre" is the same as "hræra". One would rather expect
Snorri and/or the scribes to reinstate the "h", because this results
in an immediately understandable word. But what do I know ...
> But given the irregularities in the way scribes represented these
> sounds, maybe this idea isn't necessary to explain the forms that
> appear.
I don't really see it as given that the original word is Óðhrrir.
It seems to me that much of this discussion is based on this as a
given fact, then attempting to explain how such a perfectly simple
word with such a perfectly transparent meaning managed to change
into a variety of mangled forms which make less sense. I'd rather
see a seasoned academic speculate (along the lines of FJ's
observation) that the most likely form of the correct word is
Óðrerir or Óðrørir, and try to make sense out of that. I've often
wondered about a possible relation to the name "Rerir" (in Völs.)
but the etymology of this is unknown. However, ÁBM postulates
that it might be etymologically related to "rödd" (OHG rarta,
Goth. razda) - which is suggestive, but pure speculation.
Best,
Eysteinn