2005, Vol. XLIV, Qupperneq 255

C-redaktionen af Egils saga 255 Bemærk også i sagaens begyndelse: A kap. 1,3 rnafir (sål. også 825 på erstatningsblad) = B] + herser K2(og 445, + Herstir (!)

2005, Vol. XLIV, Qupperneq 420

next line.57 (9) Where A, st. 41,1 and st. 47,1 has retained the poetic word dr os ‘woman’ (which the SuSuroy informant seems to have declined as a neuter), B

2005, Vol. XLIV, Qupperneq 231

C-redaktionen af Egils saga 231 44,10 ganga Jjeir] + inn. 52,82 hers] hans ("B her efter 1600-talshåndskriftet 698; ordet mangler i WJ. 58,35 geck hann inn

2005, Vol. XLIV, Qupperneq 232

Eksempler (A = M, subsidiært den rekonstruerede afskrift *M‘, lejlighedsvis overensstem- mende med 162b): A] B C 3,9 ferbar] ferba (der sigtes specifikt til

2005, Vol. XLIV, Qupperneq 238

238 Michael Chesnutt *(d) Kun til stede i A og (delvis) i C, mangler helt i B.

2005, Vol. XLIV, Qupperneq 316

(Is. 58:7a-b). vagos] -s superscript at end of line. indue] written as two words. in] with this word the fragment ends. 3.

2005, Vol. XLIV, Qupperneq 417

Perhaps the most striking single result to emerge from a scrutiny of the versions of Bevusar tættir is that B, though recorded as much as half a century after

2005, Vol. XLIV, Qupperneq 423

Bevussrimur and Bevusar tættir 423 (21) St. 33,2 repeated at 37,2 - and cf. 28,2, only in A - vantirin (thus A; vant er tær by aural corruption B).

2005, Vol. XLIV, Qupperneq 28

The passage 458(b), EgEA I, ch. 70,9-82,38, can be compared with the following text witnesses in addition to M and K: (1) 463 and 560, which were shown above to

2005, Vol. XLIV, Qupperneq 157

AM 162 A £ fol 157 bøjning) og bøjlen (ved (b) er den generelt rundere), men når den øver- ste del af tegnet er udvisket, kan der i visse tilfælde opstå tvivl