I'm on an oil-platform without proper ON letters and little time on
my hands, but I recall an interesting example of sg/pl ambiguity from
Heidsævisthings Kristinrettr (similar text in Borgarthings), where
the context is when one can bear out a child born with physical
defects (called orkyml or orkuml, sometimes with -b-, or
herliki): 'that skal a forve foera ok reyra thar er hvarki gengr yfir
menn ne fenadr' In an alternate manuscript 'gengr' reads 'ganga'. The
problem is that 'menn' is pl., fenadr sg.. Many examples of this kind
of thing in the laws. Also, elliptical sentences with implied
subjects, indicative used for subjunctive in conditional clauses -
from memory, in the same section we have something like 'haelar horfa
i tastad, en tær i haelstad, haka medal herda, hnakki a briosti
framan, kalfar a beinum frammi, augu aftan i hnakka, hefir sels
hreifa, eda hunds hofud...'. But I recall from Gulathings section on
the same topic that 'horfa' was subjunctive there: nema that med
theim orkymlum er borit (or alit, can't recall, but borit is more
technically correct) at thannug (=thannig, thann veg) horfi andlit er
hnakki skyldi, eda hingat (the other way) taer er haelar skyldi).
Here 'horfi' is subjunctive, but 'horfa' is indicative in the
previous example). Often, 'ef' is lacking: 'vegr madr mann....,
tha....', but besides the likes of *ef madr vegr mann...'. I am
fascinated by the way in which ON legal language often emphatically
ignores norms for speech clarity (if there was such a thing), and
then in a context where clarity of meaning is of the utmost
importance. Back on deck for now. Konrad