Studia Islandica - 01.06.1956, Blaðsíða 58

56
epic part 38 parataxis, 25 hypotaxis; direct speech 17
parataxis, 19 hypotaxis. This is in almost complete agree-
ment with M.
It is apparent that in R. ch. 26 we discover the hand
of two authors, one who copied from the þáttr, one
who made the additions and re-wordings.
Moreover: the þáttr was copied, from a written text,
and its features were faithfully preserved.
12.3. Although, as stated in section 12.1, close agreement
exists between M and V as regards the distribution of
parataxis and hypotaxis in ch. 16, yet some difference
should be remarked upon.
The figures, M 45:25, V 43:26, are almost equally
balanced. In V the figure for hypotaxis is reached by
extra cases over against M, either in additions:
98,18 hvar komit var málinu
99, 6 þat var þann dag, er Glúmr ... áttu at finnask.
10 ok kemr i hug, er maðrinn var eigi djarfr, at
hann mundi eigi traust til bera ...
23 ok (réð) hann því til, at hann sá ekki órfoeri...
or in re-wordings.
I counted eleven such cases in all.
In M five cases of hypotaxis occur where V makes use
of parataxis.
On the other hand V is in the habit of combining
whole periods — counted as such in our statistics — by
a paratactical conjunction, which opens a period four-
teen times. In M this happens four times only.
This indicates a difference in style, not of great conse-
quence, yet not wholly to be passed over in silence. The
same can be observed in the other fragments of V.
This somewhat extravagant use of ok and en might
be adduced as an argument in favour of V being a more
faithful representation of naive, spoken language.
It is dangerous however to make a sweeping state-