> Often, 'ef' is lacking: 'vegr madr mann....,
> tha....', but besides the likes of *ef madr vegr mann...'.

Likewise in Gutalagh. I guess the formal context - the opening words
of a law - must have cut down on at least some of the potential
confusion, but still it is curious.

> 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.

Do you think some of the ambiguities of ON legal language might come
from their use of arcaic formulas and phrasing? We've seen evidence in
Njáls saga (most famously) that the laws, at that time, might have a
reputation for being complicated enough to have exploitable loopholes.
And then there's the bit in Víga-Glúms saga where he makes use of
arcaic negative suffixes and suffixed pronouns to swear a deliberately
ambiguous oath:

ek varkat þar ok vákat þar ok rauðkat þar odd ok egg er Þorvaldr krókr
fekk bana
"I wasn't there and I didn't strike there and I didn't redden (make
red) there point and blade where Þorvaldr krókr was killed"

But later, they realise that the words he used were ambiguous, and
that he could equally well have meant:

ek vark at þar ok vák at þar ok rauðk at þar odd ok egg er Þorvaldr
krókr fekk bana
"I was present there and I did strike there and I reddened there point
and edge where Þorvaldr krókr was killed"

Maybe the story, whenever it was invented, was inspired by confusing
language in the lawcodes, or at least language that sounded odd and
distinctly unlike that used in everyday speech.

> '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...'.

I wonder how often this law was put into practic ;-) Hmm, come to
think of it, if *everything* was back to front - wouldn't that just be
a normal person facing the other way?