Heill Eysteinn!

--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Eysteinn Bjornsson"
<eysteinn@...> wrote:

>
> --- "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)rœrir." 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 hrœrir".

> ("mss. speelings -rerir, -re,rir, rærir, reyrir, all of which
> can only mean rerir or rørir; hardly hrœrir")

> 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 ...

Indeed, FJ also has the following in his edition of Hávamál (1924,
København): 'Óðrørir: således må jeg antage, at navnets rette form
er, og ikki óðroerir c: óðhroe'rir, således som nu sidst B.M. Ólsen
vil hævde'. He mentions the possible connection to Rerir (ÁBM on
this, as you mention), and continues : Jeg må derfor hævde, at den
rigtige form er -rerir (-reRir), -rørir (-røRir), og at roden står i
forbindelse med ris- (i rísa, reis)...' (I must therefore conclude
that the correct form is rerir/rørir, and that the root stands in
relation with -ris (in rísa, reis)...). So, yes, a scholarly crux.
ÁBM's guess on the form behind Rerir (*razi-), like hroera (hrôzi-),
shows z/R, which opens for the possible influence of z/R on the
preceeding vowel in either case. FJ chooses the form óðrørir for his
text. I can say at this point is that I will look further into it at
a later time, as anything which FJ maintains is important to me ;) I
cannot recall disagreeing with FJ's text on anything except on the
writing simplified triple-consonants. On this issue, I follow the
orthography and rules on triple-consonants as shown in the Homilies,
which I am not sure that FJ had access to. Even if he did, there
were no available systematic studies of these texts and the rules of
their orthography in him time - otherwise, I think that he would
have amended his text on just this point, if nothing else. He shows,
for instance, vats's þorf (H4), manvit mikit (H&), etc. (shortening
throughout), where following more recently available information on
the Homilies' language we would get: vatns's þorf, mannvit mikit,
etc.. FJ's is the classic edition, in my opinion, and I am deeply
greatful to FJ in every way, here as elsewhere. Thus, while I might
amend his golden 10th century text on a few points, like this one
(and stressed auk/unstressed ok vs. universal auk, plus a bit more),
I nevertheless regard it as the standard (I use JH for manuscript
evidence and commentary on it). In other words, asides from a minor
point or two on orthographic practice (unessential), I read with FJ
except when a point of difference can be clearly shown by evidence
later unearthed. I underline _later unearthed_, as I think FJ would
have amended had it been available/were it known in his time. Thus,
as FJ had no available corpus of all extant inscriptions, he could
hardly have perceived the 10th cent. universiality of auk (og), even
if he knew that it occured in stressed positions from the available
evidence, etc.. Thus, we move carefully forward on the shoulders of
the giants... FJ could also be right about óðrørir, but given that
no one has an etymology in this case, the óðhrø'rir-option is still
attractive, as it offers a plausible meaning and requires only the
consonant-simplification in compounds, which we know was occuring by
the time of the manuscipts in question, especially in compound
personal names (baugeiðr for baugheiðr, to name one of many examples
with loss of -h-, even in double-consonant clusters by this time).
Of course, if FJ is right here, then we need an explantion of, and a
root for, -rørir, if possible. Otherwise, gaman að heyra í þér :)

Gangi þér í haginn,
Konráð

> > 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 Óhrœrir, 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 Óðhrœrir.
> 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
>