Brian

Thanks for feedback. Some follow up comments inserted below.

Kveðja
Alan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: norse_course@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:norse_course@yahoogroups.com]

> On Behalf Of Brian M. Scott
> Sent: Sunday, 13 February 2011 4:10 AM
> To: rob13567
> Subject: Re: [norse_course] Laxdaela Saga 26 Part 2 -- Rob's

Translation

>
> > Synir hans láta verpa haug virðulegan eftir hann.
> > His sons caused (to) raise a worthy mound for him.
> > His sons had a splendid mound thrown up in his honour.
> > His sons caused to raise a mound worthy of him.
>
> I'm with Rob and Grace here: <virðulegan> modifies <haug>,
> so it's 'a splendid/worthy mound', and <eftir hann> is 'to
> his memory' (or any reasonable paraphrase thereof).

[Alan] ...which, I think, is precisely what my translation says, except
that I placed the adjectival phrase "worthy of him (his memory)" after
the noun to which it refers, just as the original does.

>
> > Hlýtur Bárður föðurleifð þeirra því að til þess héldu
> > fleiri menn því að hann var vinsælli.
>
> > Bárðr gets (by lot) their father’s patrimony (left-overs)
> > because more men held to (ie were bent on, conducive to,
> > supportive of, see halda til, Z.iii) that because he was
> > more-popular.
>
> As we see in the next sentence Bárð doesn't get the whole
> patrimony. And since Þorleik gets moveable property, it
> must be that <föðurleifð> here refers specifically to the
> estate -- the real property. I don't think that we can
> safely infer that the division was by lot, i.e., that some
> chance mechanism was used: <hljóta> can be simply 'to get'.
> <Halda til e-s> can also be 'to desire something', 'to cause
> something, to bring something about', and 'to further
> something', of which the first and last make good sense
> here: 'Bárð gets their father's estate because more people
> desired this', or 'Bárð gets their father's estate because
> more people pushed for this'. Indeed, in this context there
> isn't much difference between the two, and I shouldn't be
> surprised if the real sense were a combination of them. And
> on any of these interpretations the division wasn't actually
> by lot.

[Alan] Although it may have read this way, I didn't intend my
translation of "getting (by lot)" to suggest a purely "chance mechanism"
such as drawing lots, rather that it was his "lot" (destiny, fate) to
have the support of most men because he was more popular.