Thanks for your help, Brian. I did not misread the en. "But" or "and"
didn't seem to make sense here so I checked Zoega and en can also work as a
relative pronoun.
Grace

> Þat var skip þitt, er ek sá, en þú forir konu mína á, ok
> beið mín hér, ...

> It was your ship which I saw, which you carried my wife
> on, ...

I think that you misread the <en> as <er>; 'It was your ship
that I saw, but you conveyed my wife onto [it], ...'.

> Anakinn himingangari gørir svá, ok sér haug orpna nærri
> sandi þar.

> Anakinn skywalker does so and sees a mound thrown up near
> (the) sea shore there.

A <haugr> isn't necessarily a funeral/burial mound, but in
this case we know that it is one and for greater clarity
could say so.

> Hann reiðisk, ok spottar mjök at þessu inu mikla
> þrælsverki, segir at engi maðr nema þrælborinn kysi at
> haugsetjask í sandi.

> He becomes angry and greatly mocks at this, the worst
> thrall's work, says that no man except one born a thrall
> would choose to have a mound raised in sand.

<Mikla> is just 'great', and the definite article in <þessu
inu mikla þrælsverki> (or, in the nominative, <þetta ina
mikla þrælsverk>) is redundant in terms of English syntax:
'mocks at this great thrall's work'.

> Ok hann hvarf í skugga.
> And he disappeared (turned into shadows).

'And he disappeared into [the] shadows.' There needn't be
any actual turning.

> Þat var skip þitt, er ek sá, en þú forir konu mína á, ok
> beið mín hér, ...

> It was your ship which I saw, which you carried my wife
> on, ...

I think that you misread the <en> as <er>; 'It was your ship
that I saw, but you conveyed my wife onto [it], ...'.

> "Gabba þú mik ekki; ek hefi eigi gleymda eiða mína," segir
> Anakinn,

> "Do not mock me, I have not forgotten my oath," says
> Anakinn,

Minor glitch: <eiða> is (accusative) plural, so it's
'oaths'.

> "En ek hefi svarna nýja eiða, til þess at bjarga konu
> minni, ok at vernda mitt nýja ríki."

> "But I have sworn new oaths to this, to save my wife and
> to protect my new kingdom."

In this construction the object of <til> gives the reason or
purpose for the swearing of the new oaths: 'But I have sworn
new oaths to this [end], to save my wife and to protect my
new kingdom'.

> ... ef þú sverir Falfaðni konungi trúnaðareiða."

> ... if you swear an oath of allegiance to King Palpatine.

Minor glitch again: <trúnaðareiða> is (accusative) plural,
so it's 'oaths'.

> En Víga-Óbívan kvað, "Anakinn, ek hefi eiða svarna til
> ættar minnar - til ins forna siðar."

> But Slayer Obiwan said, "Anakinn, I have sworn oaths to my
> ancestors in the old custom."

Not quite: <til ættar minnar> and <til ins forna siðar> are
exactly parallel constructions, and he's saying that he's
sworn oaths both to <ættar minnar> and to <ins forna siðar>.
I don't think that 'ancestors' is quite right: here it seems
likely that <ætt> encompasses his entire kindred. Perhaps
'I have sworn oaths to my kin - to the old way'.

It's a lot easier than Laxdola, isn't it? It probably helps
that it's not being written by a native speaker.

Brian



Fred and Grace Hatton
Hawley Pa