> Hann hafði á höfði hjálm gullroðinn og skjöld á hlið
> rauðan og dreginn á með gulli krossinn helgi.
> He had on (his) head a gilted helmet and shield, red on
> the edge, and trimmed with the holy gold cross.
> He had on (his) head a helmet worked with gold and a
> shield, red on a side and drawn on with the gold holy
> cross.
> He had (wore) on (his) head a gilt (lit: gold-reddened)
> helmet and- a shield at (his) side, red and with the gold
> cross of holiness (security?) drawn on (it).
It's 'holy cross': <helgi> is the masc. nom. sing. weak
form; see Gordon, §102. 'He had on [his] head a gilt helm
and at [his] side a red shield, and the holy cross drawn on
[it] with gold'.
> Allir menn hans voru í litklæðum.
> All his men were in similar clothing.
> All his men were in colored clothing.
> All his men (people) were in coloured (dyed)-clothes.
The implication presumably being that they were wearing
their best, and it was pretty good.
> Þeir voru alls á þriðja tigi manna.
> They were altogether thirty men.
> They were in all thirty men.
> They were in the third ten of men (ie there were somewhere
> between 20 and 30 of them) all up.
For an example of roughly this type of usage see Zoëga s.v.
<tigr>: <sex ins fimta tigar> 'six in the fifth ten = 46'.
> Bolli gekk í móti þeim Ólafi og synir Ósvífurs og fagna
> þeim vel.
> Bolli went to meet them, Olaf and Osivur's sons, and
> greets them well.
> Bolli went to meet them Olaf and Osvif’s sons and received
> them well.
> Bolli walked towards (ie to meet) them, Ólafr (and co) and
> Ósvífrs sons (nominative) also greeted them well.
To keep straight who's greeting whom, I'd either modify the
order -- 'Bolli and Ósvífr's sons went to them, Ólaf & Co.,
and greeted them well' -- or make it even less literal:
'Bolli went to Ólaf & Co., as did Ósvífr's sons, and greeted
them well'.
> Eftir það var þeim inn fylgt.
> After that they were in support (of one another). (?)
> After that they were lead inside.
> After that (it) was guided for them inside (ie they were
> lead inside).
I wasn't going to say anything, but with two of you doing it
I can't resist! 'Lead' is not like 'read': the past tense
is 'led'.
> Hesturinn var mikill og vænn og hafði aldregi brugðist að
> vígi.
> The horse (why "the horse" and not "the horses" here?)
> was large and beautiful and never had failed in a fight.
> The stallion was large and beautiful and had never failed
> to win.
> The stallion (is specifically identified here, the others
> horses in the group were mares) was tall and beautiful (so
> far as horses go, if your into horses, and Kjartan isn´t)
> and had never failed in battle.
CV notes that in 'old writers' <hestr> is generally
'stallion', while <hross> is a gelding or any horse. I
think that the fighting in question here is between
stallions, not battle between men.
> Þessi hross vildi Bolli gefa Kjartani en Kjartan kvaðst
> engi vera hrossamaður og vildi eigi þiggja.
> Bolli wanted to give these horses to Kjartan, but Kjartan
> said for himself not to be a groom and (he) didn't want
> (to) accept (them).
> These horses Bolli wanted to give Kjartan, but Kjartan
> said he was no horseman and wished not to accept.
> Bolli wanted to give these horses to Kjartan but Kjartan
> declared-of-himself not to be a horseman (does he mean
> horseman, generally, or more pointedly groom?, see
> hrossmaðr, Z1) and wanted not to accept (them).
I'm inclined to read it as 'horseman', or even as
'horse-lover'.
> Ólafur bað hann við taka hrossunum "og eru þetta hinar
> virðulegstu gjafir."
> Olaf asked him to receive (i.e., accept) the horses "and
> (they) are this the most magnificent gifts." [Lots of
> things don't seem to make sense here: Z. says "take við"
> takes the accusative case, but "hrossunum" is the dative
> case. Also, "þetta" is singular, but both "eru" and
> "hinar" are plural. So what does it go with? Also, "þetta"
> is the accusative form, but I would expect the subject
> case here.]
It's <taka við e-u> 'to receive (something)'; <e-u> is
dative.
> Olaf bade him accept the horses “and these are the most
> worthy gifts.”
> Ólafr bade him to accept the-horses (as far as I can tell,
> Z12 identifies only the dative, taka við e-u, taka vel við
> e-m) and this (lot) (I hope that sort of explains it, I
> can´t give a grammatical explanation but there have been
> several instances of sg pronoun referring to a plural in
> the text so far, þetta is neut nominative (subject) sg)
> are the most-worthy gifts.
We sometimes do something very similar in English:
'What's that? It's too far away for me to tell.' 'It's
two men and a dog.'
Both 'that' and 'it' are singular.
> Nutu menn lítt tals hans.
> People little enjoyed his conversation.
> People enjoyed little of his talk.
> People (men) little had-the-benefit of his conversation.
In other words, he was very taciturn.
> Ætluðu þeir norður til héraða.
> They intended (to go) north to the country(side).
> They intended (to go) north to (the) country.
> They intended (to go) north to (the) country (typo:
> herað?).
<Héraða> is correct: it's the genitive plural, and <til>
takes the genitive. I think that the intended sense may be
'to the northern districts', though <norður> here is clearly
the adverb, and it's literally 'north to the districts'.
Brian