> En Hólmgǫngu-Hani skaut fyrst, ok kom øxin allt í heilann
> Gríðó, es fell þegar dauðr niðr.

> But Dueler-Han shot first, and the ax came all the way in
> the brain of Grido, who fell down dead at once.

> But Duel Han shot first and the axe came all into ?? Grido
> who fell down dead at once.

I'd say 'threw' rather than 'shot'. Grace: <heilann> is the
accusative singular <heila> of <heili> 'brain' with the
postposed definite article, and <Gríðó> is a dative of
respect, equivalent here to a possessive: 'into the brain
[to] Gríðó', i.e., 'into Gríðó's brain'.

Instead of trying to do line-by-line comments on the vísa,
I'll give my own attempt, with explanations. Some of the
comments may be superfluous, but they're partly for my own
benefit as well. Some of this I managed entirely on my own,
but I was eventually also helped by a prose reordering of
the original of the vísa that I found in the Guðni Jónsson
edition of 'Bjarnar saga Hítdælakappa' at
<http://heimskringla.no/wiki/Bjarnar_saga_H%C3%ADtd%C3%A6lakappa>.
(The original differs only in having <Bjarnar> instead of
<Gríðós>.)

> Ǫllungis biðk allar
> atgeirs eða goð fleiri,
> rétt skilk, rammar vættir
> randóps, þærs hlýrn skópu,
> at, styrbendir, standi,
> stálgaldrs, en ek valda,
> bloðugr ǫrn of Gríðós
> barðrauðr hǫfuðsvǫrðum.

<Biðk> is <bið ek> 'I ask'; it takes the accusative of the
person(s) of whom the request is being made. In this case
that would be <vættir> 'wights, supernatural beings' (fem.
acc. plur.) and <goð> 'gods' (neut. acc. plur.). <Atgeirs>
is genitive and most likely modifies <goð>: 'halberd's
gods', 'gods of the halberd', presumably meaning 'war gods'.

<Skilk> is like <biðk>: it's <skil ek> 'I understand'.

<Randóp>, literally 'shield-shouting' but actually a kenning
for 'battle', can be found in CV at <randar->. Here it's in
the genitive modifying <rammar vættir>: 'mighty wights of
shield-shouting' = 'mighty battle-wights'. <Þærs> is
another compound, <þær es> 'those who', feminine to agree
with <vættir>. <Hlýrn> can actually be found in CV, which
says that the exact meaning isn't known. A bit of digging
elsewhere indicates that at least in this context it's
commonly understood to mean 'heavenly body, especially the
sun or moon', the plural referring to both of the latter at
once. (See, e.g.,
<http://www.septentrionalia.net/lex/index2.php?book=d&page=266&ext=html>.)
Since it's thought to be neuter, <hlýrn> could be acc. sing.
or acc. plur., but at any rate its the object of <skópu>, a
strong 3rd person plur. past tense of <skapa>.

<At>, if I'm not mistaken, introduces what he's asking for:
'I ask that so-and-so happen'. What's being asked for is
therefore going to be a clause, and <standi> would appear to
be its verb. As something wished for, it's a subjunctive
(3rd person sing. pres.): 'I ask that X stand ...'.

To jump ahead for a moment, <stálgaldrs> is the gen. of
<stálgaldr> 'steel-incantation'; here 'steel' is a stand-in
for 'sword', so the whole is a kenning for 'battle'.

<Styrbendir> is the biggest puzzle. It must be a compound
of <styr-> and <-bendir>, but neither element is entirely
unproblematic. Nouns in <-ir> are frequently agent nouns,
especially in poetry; some examples are <geymir> 'observer'
(from <geyma> 'to heed, mind, watch'); <gellir> 'yeller'
(from <gella> 'to yell, roar, bellow'); <erfir> 'heir' (from
<erfa> 'to inherit'); <neytir> 'user' (from <neyta> 'to
use'); <œpir> 'one who cries out' (from <œpa> 'to cry out,
to shout'); <skreytir> 'decorator' (from <skreyta> 'to
ornament'; <nœrir> 'nourisher' (from <nœra> 'to nourish'.
I'm inclined to take <bendir> as another example of the
type, from one of the verbs <benda>, but in order to decide
what sense is wanted, we'll need to look at the first
element.

<Styrr> is 'stir, tumult, brawl', and a German reference
adds 'Kampf' (battle). Unfortunately, neither
'battle-pointer' nor 'battle-bender' really makes much
sense. Etymologically, at least, the 'bend' verb can also
mean 'to bind', but that doesn't help much either. The
Lexicon Poeticum takes <styrbendir> to be 'without a doubt'
an error for <stríðbendir>, which it glosses 'kraftig
volder'. If I'm not mistaken, <volder> is the agent noun
from Danish <volde> 'to cause (generally something
unpleasant)', making the gloss something like 'powerful
agent/actor'. <Stríð-> in this compound seems to be 'hard,
severe, unpleasant', so perhaps 'harsh agent/actor' would be
closer to the mark. However, I'm not at all sure where
'agent/actor' comes from. The only possibility that has
occurred to me so far is that it's connected with <bendask á
um e-t> 'to dispute, contest about something', in which
case an even better reading might be 'harsh/powerful
opponent'.

The lexicon of kennings at
<http://notendur.hi.is/eybjorn/ugm/kennings/kennings.html>
supports this reading, though it may not be an independent
source. In the analytical glossary <bendir> is glossed
'pointer; bender; performer' and described as an agent noun
from <benda> 'point; bend; perform'. <Stríðbendir
stálgaldrs> is then glossed 'harsh performer of battle',
meaning 'warrior'. (Similarly, the Lex. Poet. glosses
<stálgaldrs stríðbendir> as 'kriger' (warrior).)
<Styrbendir stálgaldrs> would then have to be something like
'battle's battle-opponent' or 'battle's battle-performer',
with a redundancy that does seem a bit unlikely. But
whatever the details, I'm willing to accept this two-word
phrase as a kenning for 'warrior'.

<Valda> is 'to cause', here in the subjunctive. <Bloðugr>
seems to be a typo for <blóðugr> 'bloody', and <ǫrn> is
'eagle'; this phrase is in the nominative and appears to be
the subject of <standi>. <Of> is a preposition equivalent
here to <yfir> 'over'; its object is <hǫfuðsvǫrðum>, whose
nom. sing., <höfuðsvörðr> 'the head skin, scalp' is noted in
CV in the compounds in the article on <höfuð>, along with
the idiom <standa yfir e-s höfuðsvörðum> 'to have an enemy's
head at one's feet, slay one'. Finally, <barðrauðr> is also
nom. masc. and must go with <blóðugr örn>; while it's
literally 'beak-red', the sense must be 'red-beaked'.

Here's a translation that preserves the individual lines, if
not the word-order within each line, and is *almost*
understandable as English:

Completely I ask all
(and many gods of [the] halberd) –
I understand rightly – mighty wights
of shield-shouting, they who created [the] heavenly bodies,
that [there] may stand, battle-...
of steel-incantation, (but I caused,)
a bloody eagle over Gríðó’s
scalp, red-beaked.

With more natural word order:

Öllungis biðk allar rammar randóps vættir, þærs skópu
hlýrn, eða atgeirs goð fleiri, -- skilk rétt, -- at
blóðugr örn standi barðrauðr of höfuðsvörðum Gríðós,
stálgaldrs styrbendir, en ek valda.

Completely I ask all mighty wights of shield-shouting,
they who created the heavenly bodies, and many gods of
[the] halberd -- I understand rightly -- that a bloody
eagle stand read-beaked over the scalp of Gríðó,
steel-incantation's harsh opponent, but I caused [his
death].

And finally, resolving some kennings and making it more
idiomatic:

Whole-heartedly I ask all mighty battle-wights, those who
created the heavenly bodies, and many war-gods -- I
understand what is correct -- that a bloody eagle stand
red-beaked over the scalp of Gríðó, warrior. But I caused
[his death].

> XXVII. Kapítuli: Frá goðleysi Hólmgǫngu-Hana
> About Dueler Han’s godlessness (goðleysi = guðleysi)
> Of god-less Duel Han

Rob's right: <goðleysi> is a noun, not an adjective.

> “Eigi sér þetta út sem gott skip,” segir hann.

> “This does not look on the outside as a good ship,” he
> says.

> “This does not look like a good ship,” says he.

I've not seen this usage of <sjá út> before that I can
recall, but I'm pretty sure that it's intended to be read as
Grace did.

> “Þat es skjótt skip, ok hefik lengi orkazk at því, at auka
> skjótfœri þess

> That is a speedy ship, and I have long set about doing
> thus, to add that swifteness.

> “It is a fast ship and I have long ago made up my mind to
> improve this swift boat.

It can't be 'to make up one's mind to do something': that
requires <hugar> as the object of <orkazk>. The reading
that best fits the context is 'to exert oneself in a thing':
'I have long worked at this, to increase its swiftness'.
Note that <þess> is a genitive, while <skjótfœri> is nom. or
acc., so it can't be 'that swiftness'; <þess> is simply the
neut. gen. sing. pronoun, referring to <skip>.

> En Tsiubakka stýrði skipi því ýr Tattúínárhǫfn, ok allir
> menn undruðusk hversu skjótt þetta skip ferr.

> And Chewbacca piloted (the) ship thus out of Tattuin’s
> harbor, and all men wondered at how this ship went fast.

> But Chewbacca piloted the ship over Tattouin River harbor
> and all men were surprised how quickly this ship went.

I think that it's 'wondered at' more in the sense of
'marvelled at' than of 'were surprised at': they thought it
wonderful, a wonder.

> Snart kómu þeir undan hermǫnnunum, en þá sǭ þeir, at skip
> norrœnu vǭru í hǫfn þeiri, ok kómu nær, skjótandi ǫrum.

> They soon escaped the warriors, and then they saw, that a
> Norwegian ship was in their harbor, and came near,
> shooting arrows.

> They quickly escaped the army, but then they saw that a
> norse ships were in their harbor and came near shooting
> arrows.

Rob: Not only is <vǭru> clearly plural, but the <-u> of
<norrœnu> marks it as either a neuter dative singular, which
is impossible here, or a non-dative plural in the weak
declension: 'Norwegian ships were'.

> “Fyr hví komum vér eigi undan þeim?” spyrr Lúkr, “Þú
> sagðir, at þetta skip væri skjótt!”

> “Why can’t we escape them?” asks Luke, “You said, that
> this ship would be fast!”

> “Why aren’t we getting away from them?” asks Luke, “You
> said that this ship was fast!”

I'm with Grace here. In the first part he's asking why they
aren't escaping, not why they can't. In the second, <væri>
is indeed a subjunctive, but only because it's reported
speech, so 'was fast' has the right sense.

Whew!

Brian