> Kjartan lét þar taka dyr allar á húsum og bannaði öllum
> mönnum útgöngu og dreitti þau inni þrjár nætur.

> Kjartan caused there to take all doorways to the houses
> and prohibited all people's going out and shut them up so
> as to force them to relieve themselves inside the house
> for three days (literally, 3 nights). (Z. dreita - d. en
> inni, to shut one up so as to force him to ease himself
> (drita) within doors)

> Kjartan had all doors on the houses taken (over) and
> forbade all people to go out and they were shut in and
> forced to ease themselves indoors (Z) for three nights.

> Kjartan caused there to take (seize) all doorways to the
> farm-buildings (pl, see hus, Z1) and banned (prohibited)
> outgoing (exit) to all persons (men) and shut them (men
> and women) inside for three nights (so that they had to
> relieve themselves inside - great to know that this act
> has its own word)

It has at least two: see also <skíta>, cognate with <shit>
and German <scheissen>.

<Dríta> has cognates in Old English <drītan>, Middle Dutch
<drîten> (Dutch <drijten>), Low German <drîten>, and Old
High German <trîzan>. Apparently there was a Proto-Germanic
Class I strong verb *drītan, with *drait in the past
indicative singular and *dritan- in the past indicative
plural and the past participle. (Two of the more familiar
verb of this class are 'to ride' and 'to bite'.)

It survived into Middle English and even into modern Scots,
there with the inflection <drite>, <drate>, <dritten>. Had
it survived fully regularly into Present-Day English, as
<ride> did, it would have been <drite>, <drote>, <dritten>;
had the past singular been assimilated to the past plural
and past participle, as happened with <bite>, we'd have had
<drite>, <drit>, <dritten>.

This probably isn't the source of our <dirt>, however,
though the two are related: <dirt> is by metathesis from
Middle English <drit>, which isn't attested in Old English
and is probably borrowed from ON <drit> 'excrement'.

> Hann svarar: "Lítið var bragð að því."

> He answers: "It was very little." (Z. bragð 2 - lítit b.
> mun þá at (it must be very slight))

> He answers, “Little was changed? by it.”

> He answers: “Little was (the) time (? cf skömmu bragði,
> Z1) for that.”

I'll go with Rob on this one: I think that he found the
right model.

> Þá mælti Hrefna og brosti við: ...

> Then Hrefna spoke and smiled in reply: ...

> Then Hrefna spoke and grinned, ...

> Then Hrefna spoke and smiled with (it, ie in doing so, at
> the same time, I note Z but will go with my gut feel): ...

Adverbial <við> -- making it more or less the equivalent of
'said with a smile -- does seem to suit the sense better
than the verbal compound <brosa við> 'to smile in reply'.

> Var mönnum auðfynt að hann reiddist við er hún hafði þetta
> í fleymingi.

> It was clear to people that he had gotten angry with this
> which she had made sport of. (Z. fleymingr - hafa e-t í
> fleymingi, to make sport of)

> It was easy to find that he became angry with (that) and
> she had made sport of this.

> (It) was for persons (men) easily-found (clear) that he
> became-angry with (it) when (or that?) she had this jest
> (ie made sport of this).

I'd just go for the sense, I think, and make it something
like 'that he became angry at her making sport of this'.

> "Ekki bar mér það fyrir augu er þú segir frá Hrefna," ...

> "Don't let that come before my eyes that you tell,
> Hrefna," ...

> “Nothing comes now before my eyes which you speak of,
> Hrefna,” ...

> “That, which you speak about, Hrefna, carried (happened,
> bera, simple past tense, 3rd pers sg) not before my eyes
> (ie it did not happen),” ...

Since this is impersonal <bera>, I'd go with something like
'Nothing came before my eyes that you relate, Hrefna', or
even the less literal 'I saw nothing that you relate,
Hrefna'.

> Þeim Laugamönnum líkar illa og þótti þetta miklu meiri
> svívirðing og verri en þótt Kjartan hefði drepið mann eða
> tvo fyrir þeim.

> The people of Lauga don't like (it) and thought this much
> more a disgrace and worse than although (meaning "as if"?)
> Kjartan had slain a man or two in front of them.

> (It) seemed bad to those Laugar men and that seemed a much
> more shameful thing and worse even than had Kjartan slain
> a man or two before them.

> (It) ill-pleases those persons-(men)-of-Laugar and this
> seemed a much greater dishonour and worse than even-if
> Kjartan had killed a person (man) or two against (?) them.

I think that this <fyrir> probably comes under the heading
WITH DAT.C.III.1 'denoting disadvantage, harm, suffering',
where two of the examples are <þeir hafa eigi þessa menn
fyrir yðr drepit, heldr fyrir yðrar sakir þessi víg vegit>
'they have not harmed you, but rather done you a service in
slaying these men' and <ef hross verðr tekit fyrir honum>
'if a horse of his be taken'. On the first model we'd have
something like 'Kjartan had killed a man or two to their
harm', and on the second, which seems the better choice,
we'd have simply 'Kjartan had killed a man or two of
theirs'.

> Guðrún talaði hér fæst um en þó fundu menn það á orðum
> hennar að eigi væri víst hvort öðrum lægi í meira rúmi en
> henni.

> Gudrun said the least as regards this although people
> found that, at her words that would not be certain if the
> words were of great concern to her. (I don't see how "en"
> is used in this sentence.) (Z. hér - h. um, in this, as
> regards this.) ( (Z. rúm 1 - e-m liggr e-t í miklu rúmi,
> it is of great concern, importance to one)

> Gudrun spoke least here about (it) but still people
> thought it of her words that (it) was not certain whether
> to others it was of greater concern than to her.

> Guðrún talked here least about (it) but nevertheless men
> found (noticed) that in her words that (it) were not
> certain whether (it) was of greater concern to others (see
> e-m liggr e-t í miklu rúmi, rúm, Z1) than to her.

I shouldn't be surprised if this were another example of ON
understatement, intended to suggest that her few words on
the subject indicated feelings quite possibly stronger than
anyone else's.

Brian