Re: Sigrgardr 8C

> Síðan sigla þeir leið sína.

> They then sail on their way.

> Afterwards they sail on their way.

> After-that they sail on their way.

After that they sail on their way.

> Sigrgarðr spurði þá margra tíðinda en þeir leystu vel úr
> öllu því sem hann spurði ok var ei sá hlutr at þeir kynni
> ei nökkura grein á at gjöra.

> Sigrgardr asked them about much news, and/but they
> answered well all that he asked, and it was not such
> matters that they didn't know some distinction to do.n (CV
> leysa: leysa ór e-u (spurningu) = to solve a difficulty,
> answer a question)

> Sigrgardr asked then many tidings and they answered well
> out of all that which he asked and was not that thing that
> they knew not some cause to do.

> Sigrgarðr asked them (most likely but possibly þá = then)
> of many tidings but (and) they well explained (answered,
> leysa ór e-u, Z11) all those which he asked (about), and
> (there) was not that thing that they were not able (kunna
> Z10) to make some understanding about (ie to explain, gera
> grein á e-u, under grein, Z4, Z5).

Sigrgarð then asked [or possibly ‘asked them’] about much
news [‘many tidings’], and they answered well about all that
which he asked, and [there] was not that thing for which
they could not make some explanation.

It seems to me that in all of these narratives the sequence
of events tends to be made explicit with <síðan>, <þá>, etc.
We’ve just been moved forward to a new point in time with
<síðan>, so I’m inclined to read <þá> as ‘then, at that
time’, making clear exactly when this inquiry occurred,
rather than as the pronoun ‘them’.

> Sigrgarðr spurði Hörð hvar hann vissi víking þann at mestr
> frami væri at berjast við.

> Sigrgardr asked Hord whether he knew the Viking who was
> most prominent to fight with.

> Sigrgardr asked Hordr where he knew that Viking that was
> the most bold to fight with.

> Sigrgarðr asked Hörðr where he knew that sea-rover
> (viking) that (it) would-be (the) greatest distinction
> (frami, Z3, noun) to fight against.

Sigrgarð asked Hörð where he knew that freebooter [to be]
from whom [‘that’] would be the most fame from fighting [‘to
fight’] against.

> Hörðr sagði at í Eystrasalti væri víkingr mikill sá er
> Knútr inn knappi hét.

> Hordr said that in Eystrasalti (there) was a great Viking
> who was named Knutr the Knappi.

> Hordr said that in Eystrasalti was that huge Viking who
> was called Knutr the knob?

> Hörðr said that in Eystrasaltr (Baltic, lit:
> More-Eastern-Salt) was that great sea-rover (viking) who
> was-called Knútr the knob (from knappr? noun, or scanty,
> knappr adj? CV say just a nickname, which hardly
> enlightens, can´s see how Hall gets ‘brisk’).

Hörð said that in the Baltic Sea [literally ‘more eastern
salt’] was the great freebooter who was called Knút inn
knappi.

(It’s <Eystrasalt>, neuter, not a masculine <Eystrasaltr>.)

The byname is apparently the weakly inflected form of an
adjective <knappr>. (In Old Norse bynames with the definite
article, the next word is always an adjective.) CV has this
as ‘scanty’, which is one of the senses of modern <knappur>
(alongside the clearly related ‘terse, concise’), but the
entry in de Vries suggests that the matter may not be quite
so clear cut. The etymological notes in the entry for
<knapp> (adj.) ‘scanty; short; bare; narrow; reduced,
straitened; sparing, chary’ in Svenska Akademiens Ordbok are
interesting. They mention Swedish dialect <knapp>
‘insufficient, inadequate; stingy; rapid, quick’ and say
that the word is from a Low German <knap> ‘insufficient,
inadequate; thrifty; brisk, quick, speedy; able; vigorous’.
Thus, Knút’s byname could conceivably have meant any of ‘the
scrawny’, ‘the thrifty (or miserly)’, and ‘the quick’. Hall
seems to have chosen the last of these possibilities.

> Hann hefði fimmtán skip ok hefði aldrei ósigr fengit í
> bardögum, ok segir at þat væri enn meiri frami ok
> mannraun, at berjast við hann heldr enn við konur, þó at
> þær láti mikinn.

> He had 15 ships and had never gotten a defeat in battle,
> and he says that it would be even more superior and
> trial-of-courage to fight with him rathen than with a
> woman, although they lose much.

> He had fifteen ships and had never been defeated in battle
> and says that it is yet more bold and dangerous to fight
> with him rather than with (the) woman, even though they ?
> much.

> He had fifteen ships and had never received defeat (ie had
> never been defeated, úsigr) in battles (gram. plural), and
> says that that that would-be a still greater distinction
> (frami, Z3) and a test-of-courage (lit: person-test) to
> fight against him rather than against women (plural, see
> following þær), even though they (ie women)
> comport-themselves (láta, Z7) greatly (mikill, Z5, as adv)
> (strut about like they own the place). (no sexism here!)

He had fifteen ships and had never received a defeat in
battle [plural in ON], and [Hörð] says that it would be a
yet greater distinction and trial [of courage] to fight with
him rather than with women, even if they [i.e., the women]
do act big.

A straightforward assertion that he had 15 ships would use
the indicative: <Hann hafði fimmtán skip>. The only reason
that I can see for the subjunctive <hefði> is to indicate
that this is still reported speech, in which case Hörð is
the speaker. But <segir> is indicative, so its subject
ought to be the actual speaker, i.e., Hörð.

> Sigrgarðr spurði hvárt hann vissi hvert hans væri at
> leita.

> Sigrgardr asked whether he knew where he would be sought.

> Sigrgardr asked whether he knew whether he was to be
> found?

> Sigrgarðr asked whether he knew whither (one) was to seek
> him (leita with gen).

Sigrgarð asked whether he knew where he was to be sought.

> Hörðr kvaðst þat gjörla vita.

> Hordr said for himself that he knows fully.

> Hordr said he knows it fully.

> Hörðr declared-of-himself to know that fully.

Hörð said that he knew that fully.

> Sigrgarðr bað þá þangat stefna.

> Sigrgardr then asked to head there.

> Sigrgardr bade them steer thither.

> Sigrgarðr bade them to head (set course) thither.

Sigrgarð told them [i.e., his men] to head thither.

> Sigla þeir nú þangat til er þeir koma till þess staðar er
> Lóar heitir.

> They now sail there until they arrive at the town that is
> named Loar.

> They sail now thither until they come to this place which
> is called Loar.

> They sail now till that time (þangat til) that they come
> to that place which is-called Lóar.

They now sail thither until they come to the place that is
called Lóar.

I suspect that the place-name comes from a <ló> (cognate
with English <lea>) that I believe is attested only as the
second element of some place-names (e.g., <Oslo>), from
Proto-Gmr. *lauhaz ‘woodland clearing, glade, underwood’.
The PGmc. noun is masculine, unlike <ló> ‘a sandpiper,
golden plover’ and modern <ló> ‘pile, nap; wool waste’,
which are feminine. I’d have expected PGmc. *lauhaz to
yield a masc. ON <lór>; either the word changed gender in
ON, which is possible, or there was a fem. PGmc. variant
*lauhō that gave rise to it.

At any rate it appears that <Lóar> was the nom. plural (in
contrast to the plural <lœr> of the sandpiper word). It’s
conceivable that the sense in this place-name was closer to
that given by de Vries for a Faroese cognate, ‘wave-washed
flat beach’.

> Þar var Knútr fyrir með liði sínu.

> Knutr was there ahead with his army.

> There was Knutr in front with his forces.

> Knútr was present (vera fyrir) there with his troops.

Knút was present there with his host.

> Hann hafði dreka; þat var mikill gersimi.

> He had a ship of war; it was a large costly thing.

> He had a dragon. It was a great treasure.

> He had a dragon (prowed warship); that was a great
> thing-of-value.

He had a dragon-prowed warship; it was a great treasure.

> Jógrímr hét stafnbúi hans.

> Jogrimr was the name of his forecastle-man.

> His forecastle man was named Jogrimr.

> His fo’c’sle-man was-called Jógrímr.

His forecastle-man was called Jógrím.

> Hann var kallaðr skít í andliti því at nef hans var
> kolsvart ok kinnr báðar en hvítt hörundit annars staðar.

> He was called feces in the face because his nose was
> coal-black and both cheeks, but white skin (on) either
> side.

> He was called sh*t-in-face because his nose and both
> cheeks were coal black, but white skin in other places.

> He was called shit in (the) countenance (“shit-face”)
> because his nostrils were (ie nose was) coal-black and
> both cheeks but the skin white elsewhere.

He was called <skít í andliti> ‘shit-in-face’ because his
nose was coal-black, and both cheeks, but the skin [was]
white elsewhere.

<Nef> is ‘nose’; ‘nostril’ is <nös>.

> Gráboli hét annarr.

> Another was named Graboli.

> The second was named Graboli.

> Another was-called Gráboli.

Another was called Gráboli [‘Grey-bull’].

> Hann hafði klaufir á fótum, ok sitt horn á hvárum vanga,
> ok váru þau hvöss sem spjótsoddar.

> He had cloven feet on his legs, and his horn on each
> cheek, and they were sharp as spear points.

> He had cleft feet and his horn on each field?? and they
> were sharp as spear points.

> He had clefts on (his) feet (ie was cloven-footed) and a
> horn on his each upper-cheek (vangi), and they were sharp
> (neut pl of hvass) like spear-tips.

He had cloven hooves on [his] legs, and a [‘his’] horn on
each upper cheek, and they were sharp as spear-points.

> Sigrgarðr lagði til bardaga við hans menn med jafnmörgum
> skipum.

> Sigrgardr set off to battle with his men with equally many
> ships.

> Sigrgardr set about battle with his men with equally many
> ships.

> Sigrgarðr laid (course) for battle against his (ie
> Knútr’s) men with equal-many ships.

Sigrgarð engaged in battle against his [Knút’s] men with
equally many ships.

> Knútr spurði hverr þar gjörði svá gildan atróðr.

> Knutr asked who made there such a full rowing attack.

> Knutr asked who there did such stout? rowing towards
> (them).

> Knútr asked who there made such a worthy (all stops out)
> attack (lit: a rowing-towards).

Knút asked who was making so great a sea attack [‘a
rowing-against’] there.

> Sigrgarðr segir til sín.

> Sigrgardr tells him.

> Sigrgardr says his name.

> Sigrgarðr says of himself (ie gives his name).

Sigrgarð gives his name.

> “Várkunn er þat” segir Knútr “þótt þú vilir fjár afla, þó
> muntu víða þurfa til at drepa áðr skríðr í þat skarð sem
> meykonungrinn hefr eytt af þér í Tartaría fyrir linleika
> sakir karlmennsku þinnar, ok er slíkt skömm mikil at
> opinbera þar skamm sína sem honum má mestr hljóðr at
> verða.”

> "It is a pity," Knutr says "although you want to gain
> wealth, yet you will far and wide need to kill already
> crawls in that empty space as the maid-king has destroyed
> of you in Tararia before lenity for the sake of your
> manhood, and it is such a great shame to reveal there his
> short as to him can most silent be."

> “It is to be excused,” says Knutr, “although you want to
> gain wealth, yet will you need to widen to kill before
> sail in that empty space which the maiden king has
> nothing? of you in Tartaria for lenity’s sake of your
> manhood, and is such great shame to reveal there his shame
> as to him may most silence to be.” (huh?)

> “That is something-to-be-excused,” says Knútr “even-though
> you should-want to gain wealth (gen of fé), still you-will
> need to strike (drepa til e-s) at (men) far-and-wide
> before (it) slides (skríða, Z3) into (ie fills) that gap
> (ie the gap in Sigrgarðr’s manly completeness) (ie before
> your manly honour is restored) which the-maiden-king has
> cleared-out (eyða) from you (deprived you of) in Tataría
> for reasons of (ie due to) (the) lenity (‘softness’) of
> your manhood, and (it) is in-such-wise (slíkr, Z3 as adv)
> a great dishonour to reveal one´s-own shame (skamm =
> skömm) there (ie in that case) where the greatest (number
> of men? Masc nom sg) are able to become silent (masc nom
> sg adj agrees with mestr) with him. ?? can´t get this last
> clause to hang together)

‘It is understandable,’ says Knút, ‘that you want to gain
wealth, though you will need to kill far and wide before the
[figurative] gash that the maiden king made in you in
Tartary on account of the softness of your manhood is
filled, and [it] is likewise a great dishonor to reveal his
shame [the] there where [the] greatest blemish can come to
him.’

Baetke offers ‘understandable’ for <várkunn>. In this
construction <þótt> is more nearly ‘that’ than ‘although’.
<Skamm> near the end appears to be a variant of the expected
acc. sing. <skömm>.

I can make no sense of the last bit if <hljóðr> really is
the adjective ‘silent, taciturn’. After much original
cogitation and then more trying to make sense of Hall’s
translation, I’m thinking that it may be an error for
<ljóðr> ‘defect, blemish’ — specifically, a hypercorrection.
In Norway initial <hl-> became <l-> starting in the 11th
century; I don’t remember exactly which, but we’ve seen a
few examples of this over the years. Possible some scribe
thought that an original <ljóðr> was an error for <hljóðr>.
It’s also possible, of course, that there actually was a
dialect variant <hljóðr> of <ljóðr>. In any case I’ve
translated it on the assumption that we’re really dealing
with <ljóðr>. (I’m not sure that the idea would have
occurred to me without Hall’s translation; I *am* fairly
sure that I’d have been much more hesitant to suggest it!)

> “Litlu þætti mér þat varða,” segir hann, “ef ek yrði þér
> karlmaðr.”

> "It seems to matter little to me," he says, "if I were to
> become your man of valour."

> “It seems of little importance to me,” says he, “if I
> become a man to you.”

> “That would-seem (subjunctive) to me to warrant little (ir
> to be of little importance),” says he, “if I should become
> (ie prove myself) a man (of valour) to you.”

‘That would seem to me to matter little,’ he says, ‘if I
were to be a valorous man towards you.’

> “Nær muntu ganga verða,” segir Knútr.

> "You will nearly go," says Knutr.

> “You will happen to go closer?” says Knutr.

> “Nearer (nær = nærr, adv) will you need to go (really
> should be verða at ganga),” says Knútr.

‘You’ll need to get close,’ says Knút.

This is <verða> + inf. (Z7); the examples show that the
infinitive need not include <at>. <Nær> is just ‘near’, not
the comparative.

> Sigrgarðr segir at þess skuli ei lengi bíða.

> Sigrgardr says that that should not wait long.

> Sigrgardr says that this shall not wait long.

> Sigrgarðr says that (one) shall not wait a long time for
> that.

Sigrgarð says that for that [one] shall not wait a long
time.

Note that <þess> is a genitive, so it can’t be the subject
of <bíða>; here there is no explicit subject.

Brian