Studia Islandica - 01.06.1956, Page 17

15
Glúms saga 13-16, with 14.- per period, i.e. about 35%
lower than this average, and an equally abnormal low
average of phrase-length.
Gísla saga and Reykdœla saga ch. 26 fall somewhat
short as to length of phrases, Laxdœla saga rises highest,
but not really in an abnormal way, above this average.
5. It is worth while just to note the proportion of con-
junctions used, paratactical and hypotactical combined,
in relation to the number of periods. The number of
periods for each text is reduced to one as basic figure,
the total number of conjunctions is reduced propor-
tionally.
Droplaugarsona saga .................... 1 : 1,1
Heiðarvíga saga ........................ 1 : 1,4
Fóstbrœðra saga......................... 1 : 1,25
Egils saga ............................. 1 : 1,2
Gísla saga ............................. 1 : 1,4
Hrafnkels saga ......................... 1 : 0,95
Laxdœla saga............................ 1 : 0,95
Njáls saga ............................. 1 : 1,1
Reykdcela saga exc. ch. 26 ............. 1 : 2,1
Reykdœla saga ch. 26.................... 1 : 1,7
Víga-Glúms saga exc. 13-16 ............. 1 : 1,26
Víga-Glúms saga ch. 13-26 .............. 1 : 1,05
Comment is not really necessary. This list is merely an-
other form of figuring out differences. Greater average
length of periods as a matter of course is correlated with
and dependent on a higher proportion of conjunctions
used.
In HrafnTcels saga the average period consists of two
phrases, combined by almost equally balanced paratac-
tical and hypotactical conjunctions.
In Reykdœla saga an average of three phrases is
building a period.
Consequently the average length of periods in Hr.s.
is short, in R.s. great. No saga in our material comes
anywhere near R.s. in this respect.