> Var þar Kolfinnur fyrir og fjöldi manns því að forvitni
> mikil var mönnum að sjá atgang þessa ungu manna því að
> báðir voru þeir sterklegir.
> Kofinnur was already there and a great number of men
> because people were very courious to see this these young
> men fighting because the both were strong.
> Kolfinn was there beforehand and a crowd of men because
> curiosity was great on (the part of) men to see this fight
> (between) young men because they both were powerful.
> Kolfinnr was there before (him) and a great-number of
> persons (men) (I would have expected manna, gen plural)
> because a great curiousity was with (the) persons (ie folk
> were very curious) to see (the) battle of these (masc gen
> pl agrees with manna) young persons (men) because they
> both were strong-looking.
I was also curious about <fjöldi manns> and did some
digging. Both <manna> and <manns> are found, both in ON and
today. Amusingly enough, I found a Facebook page on which a
young Icelander asks <Af hverju er sagt fjöldi manns?>. The
last comment on her post:
Dæmi úr ÍO:
fjöldi manns: mannþröng, mannfjöldi (sem safnheiti).
það var svona þrjátíu manns.
Þetta er bara fast orðatiltæki, ekki satt? Hugsanlega
gamalt og stirðnað, en rangt er það allavega ekki.
I assume that <ÍO> is <Íslensk orðabók>, and that it has an
entry for <fjöldi manns> defining it as <mannþröng,
mannfjöldi (sem safnheiti)> 'crowd, mob (as collective
noun)'. The formatting suggests that 'it was about thirty
people' is also from ÍO. The commenter goes on to say:
'This is just a fixed idiom, not so? Perhaps old and
frozen, but anyway it's not wrong.'
> Það voru lög þeirra að sá þeirra er af feldi hopaði skyldi
> leysa sig þrem mörkum silfurs.
> It was their law that the one of them who jumped off the
> cloaks should himself pay three marks of silver.
> It was their law that that one of them who retreated off
> (the) cloak) should pay three marks of silver.
> It was their law (neut plural) that that-one (he) of them
> who moved-backwards (retreated) off (the) cloak should
> pay-out (absolve?, redeem?) himself with three marks of
> silver.
If I were trying to match the ON syntax, I'd probably go
with 'redeem himself'; it appears that this is a sort of
fine for violating the rules.
> Sá þeirra var óvígur er fyrri lét sitt blóð á jörð.
> The one of them was not able to fight who previously let
> his blood (fall) to the ground.
> That one of them was (ruled) unable to fight who first let
> his blood (fall) on (the) ground.
> That-one of them was unable-to-fight (disabled,
> disqualified from fighting?) who sooner (ie first)
> let-(spill) his blood on (the) ground.
It appears to be a stipulation that the duel is to first
blood.
> Eftir það voru sögð upp hólmgöngulög milli þeirra.
> After that were proclaimed the rules of the combat between
> them.
> After that, (the) law regarding duels was proclaimed
> between them.
> After that were declared (the) rules-of-engagement-for-the
> duel between them.
CV says that the hólmganga was subject to rituals and rules.
I don't know, but I'm inclined to guess that a reading out
of the rules was part of the ritual, and that <milli þeirra>
refers to the place where the reading was done (rather than
modifying <hólmgöngulög>).
> Kolfinnur brá þá við skildinum og tók af öðrumegin
> mundriða.
> Kolfinnur then warded off (the blow) with the shield and
> took off (the) other-side handle of the shield.
> Kolfinn turned then with the shield and (the blow) took
> off the other side of the shield handle.
> Kolfinnr warded-off (the blow) with the-shield (see bregða
> e-u við, Z7) and (the blow) took off (removed?, taka, Z12)
> (the) other-side of (the) shield-handle.
<Öðrum megin> is adverbial, 'on the other side': 'and
removed a shield handle on the other side'. It's not clear
to me whether K. did the removing deliberately, because it
was broken in the warding off, or whether 'the blow' is the
implied subject; the former is the literal reading.
I was intrigued by the multiple handles and was actually
able to discover a bit. The Landlaw of Magnús lagabœtir
(1274) is from a later period, but it's probably not too
misleading when it says:
Gilldr skal treskiolldr huer þœma monnum [v.l.
heimamonnum] er þriar iarnspengr liggia um þueran oc þrir
mundriðar innan uið oc traustliga negldir.
Normalized:
Gildr skal tréskjöldr hverr þœma mönnum [v.l.
heimamönnum], er þrjár járnspengr liggja um þveran ok þrír
mundriðar innan við ok traustliga negldir.
I make that:
Each wooden shield shall be worthy for those people [or
'for local people'] that three iron plates lie across and
three shield handles within and firmly nailed.
So losing one handle might not be catastrophic.
> Búi hjá þá til Kolfinns og gerði ónýtan fyrir honum
> skjöldinn og særði hann miklu sári á höndina.
> Bui then stuck at Kolfinn and the shield became useless
> for him and injured him (with) a great wound in the hands.
> Bui struck (typo?) then at Kolfinn and made the shield
> useless before him and wounded him, a severe wound on the
> arm.
> Búi hewed (struck) )(must be typo) then at Kolfinnr and
> rendered (made) the-shield useless (accusative) for
> (fyrir, Z3, or before, Z1, not clear which is intended)
> him and wounded him with a great wound on the-arm
> (singular).
I took it to be (Z3), 'useless to him'.
> Fór Kolfinnur á Korpúlfsstaði og batt Korpúlfur sár hans
> og kvað eigi minna að von um skipti þeirra Búa.
> Kofinnur went to Korpulf's place and Korpulfur bound his
> wounds and said (he) didn't think to hope concerning their
> fights.
> Kolfinn went to Korpulf’s steads and Korpulf bound his
> wound and declared he did not think to remind? (him?)
> regarding their exchange, (Kolfinn’s and) Bui’s.
> Kolfinnr went to Korpúlfsstaðir (Korpúlfrs-steads) and
> Korpúlfr bound his wound(s) and declared (it) not
> less-than (minni, compar adj) according to (the)
> expectation (as was to be expected, cf at vánum, under at,
> Z9 and under ván, Z1) concerning (the) fight (dispute) of
> them, Buí and he (ie Kolfinnr)).
In short, Korpúlf thought that it was to be expected that
Búi won.
> Hann tók kveðju hennar og mælti: "Svo hefir nú borið til
> um fund okkarn Ólöf að eg mun eigi einn saman fara til
> hellis míns.
> He received her greeting and said: "So has no born to
> concerning a our meeting Olaf that I will not quite alone
> go to my cave.
> He accepted her greeting and spoke, “So now has (it)
> happened regarding our meeting, Olaf, that I will not go
> alone to my cave.
> He accepted her greeting and spoke (It) has now happened
> (see bera til, Z.ii.3) concerning our fight (fundr, Z3),
> Ólöf, (such) that I will not go one-alone (all by myself)
> to my cave.
I think that <okkar> here refers to Búi and Ólöf, and that
<fund> is 'meeting, visit': he intends to change the venue.
Brian