Íslenzk tunga - 01.01.1959, Qupperneq 31

JÓMSVÍKINGA SAGA
29
itself. From this point of view, Indrebp was right in wishing to date
291 to the first half of the thirteenth century: it seems certain that
291’s exemplar could not have been written much later than c. 1230.
Under the circumstances, it appears that conditions are relatively
favourable for an investigation into the language of 291 in search of
distinctive inherited features. The distribution of forms of the
following words is interesting. It is perhaps superfluous to add that
commoner words must be selected if such an analysis is to have any
significance, and that in any case the philologist is never likely to be
able to satisfy the basic requirements of the statistician. It may
though be noted that part I takes up about two-sevenths of the whole
text in 291, which seems a not unreasonable amount on which to base
a comparison.
Other
interpolat-
ions12
1. maSr I (a) (b) (c) Total II I (d)11 I II Notes
ma/>r13 2 4 3 9 12 2 1 In II 4 exx. 3714—• 43», 7 exx. 6611— 67«.
Maþr - - - - 63 - _ _ First ex. 3920.
Other forms - - - - 3 - -
meN (nom. acc.) 13 21 7 23 51 12 2 -
Other forms 1 - 1 2 96 1 - Figure for II in-
cludes 27 exx. of
menn, all between
10920—128W.
11 See pp. 40—41.
12The undoubted interpolations here treated separately are: in I 817-10;
in II 387-18, 4315—444, 4421-2®, 4.5M—461n, 80«-» (see Bj. Aðalbjarnarson,
203).
13 These forms are also by far the commonest in Homiliu-bók, cf. Larsson,
Ordförrádet, s. v.