Íslenzk tunga - 01.01.1959, Qupperneq 43

JÓMSVÍKINGA SAGA
41
of urnb adv. in I (d.2) marks it off from the rest of I. The appearance
of umb here supports a date not later than c. 1230 for the writing of
291’s exemplar.
In conclusion a note may be added on Norwegianisms in 291.
Professor Seip has recorded a number of things which he believes
point to a Norwegian original from before 1200.43 This original he
identifies with the independent Jvs., not represented by the extant
redactions but used- in Fsk. and in the redaction in AM 510 4to:
„Fra dette grunnlaget stammer temmelig sikkert en stor del av
norvagismene i de ulike redaksjoner av Jómsvíkinga saga.“44 I give
a survey of the chief forms he quotes from 291 in support of his view,
with as many additional examples as I have been able to cull, though
the following does not pretend to be an exhaustive list.
(1) minne for minna (acc. masc. sg. comp.) 1018. (2) hotvetna
241!) 3212 575 662G 10523. (3) e (æ) for ei: eigi adv. always egi;
forms of eiga vb. 220 62 1514 2520 2618 418 601 6220 722 8012
8623 1173. mer. for meir- 1618 1718 3115; þer for þeir 24.15 3015
341 7428 8911; þeRÍ for þeirri 3210; fleri for fleiri 843; hella for
heilla 7416; forms of name Eiríkr. (4) ft for pt: kraft 3215, aftr
7416. (5) æ (with or without a superposed acute accent mark and
a subscript loop) for e, é: in various words at 714 1510 1827 2015
515.17 579 6127 6311 6910 7522-27 7920 9225 11010 1154 11615
1236-17. (6) Forms like: biyGoz 2326, diyptt 293, diypaz 598, riyka
317, liyga 7918, siykr 8714. Professor Seip says: „Her h0ver disse
formene godt sammen med de málmerker jeg har nevnt i ,Nye
Studier' [(1)—(5) above] .. . det er rimeligst á regne med norsk
(báhuslensk?) forelegg.“45
43 D. A. Seip, Nye studier i norsk sprákhistorie (Oslo 1954), 149—150; „Om
et norsk skriftlig grunnlag for Edda-diktning eller deler av den,“ Maal og
minne, 1957, 125—126 and 129.
44 Nye studier, 151.
45 „Edda-diktning,“ 125—126. The words quoted are the only words with
■iu-, -iú- in a stressed syllable in the text. The spelling -iy- is thus regular, not
sporadic, which suggests that it is more likely to represent a phonetic cliange
recognised by a more recent scribe than to be a mere relic of a remoter original.