Studia Islandica - 01.06.1994, Qupperneq 61

59
were the most important source for the family sagas. At the same
time, most or all scholars believe that the saga authors were by no
means slaves of oral stories and that, despite their insistence on
anonymity, they had and used an author’s prerogatives: they criti-
cized and formed the traditions known to them, ... they combined
sources, and they formulated conjectures when the traditions were
incomplete or contradictory. (Andersson 1978:150)
The question of orality is important insofar as it affects
our understanding of the sagas and of the purpose to which
the language is being used, i.e. the communicative form.
For translators, strict adherence to one school of thought or
the other (each of which dominated at different points dur-
ing the past hundred years) raises the question of whether
emphasis should be placed on bringing out the literary
aspects of the text or highlighting the manner in which it
reflects characteristics of oral transmission (insofar as
these can be ascertained). Accepting the compromise solu-
tion, on the other hand, should mean that a translator is
committed to preserve the balance which already exists in
the saga as faithfully as possible.
Es fehlt also ... das Wissen iiber die kommunikative Funktion des
Ausgangstextes, die Voraussetzung fiir die Herstellung eines aqui-
valenten Translats. (Winkler 1989:39)
Lacking such important details or simply disregarding
them (either unconsciously or by choice), many German
translators of Icelandic sagas have fallen back upon what
Winkler terms “eine philologische Úbersetzung”. They
provide something very close to an interlinear version
which conducts the reader as far as possible along the
course followed by the original author. This approach by a
translator may cause the reader considerable difficulties in
“receiving” many aspects of the text due to the lack of
explanatory assistance. It will almost certainly result in dis-
torting the target language to fit the constructions and lexis