Studia Islandica - 01.06.1994, Blaðsíða 119

117
A quite different approach, which attempts to simplify
and considerably reduce the complications of the original
language, can be seen in the version by Magnússon and
Pálsson. They do, however, retain the double negative:
and these he gave to his son Olaf, and with them the family good
luck; he added that this did not mean that he was unaware that the
luck had passed to him already. (MP 106)
It is also interesting to note the complete loss of the per-
sonification of gipta found in the Icelandic through the use
of the active verb nema staðar, which literally means “the
luck stops here”. The translators use the more passive con-
structions “had passed to him” and “had come to him”.
Arent has made a minor misreading regarding whence
the gipta or good fortune came and to whom it was being
passed on. Apart from this, little remains of the original
complicated negative construction.
Both of these he gave to his son Óláf and wished him and his kins-
men good luck, adding that his reason for doing so was not out of
ignorance of the fact that this luck had already found its way to him.
(A 63)
Following the incident where Kjartan’s sword has been
stolen, Óláfr attempts to placate him with the words
Láttu þetta ekki á þik bíta; hafa þeir sýnt ekki góðan prett, en þik
sakar ekki; látum eigi aðra eiga at því at hlæja, at vér leggim slíkt til
deilu. (142)
The repeated negatives are used to suggest the positive,
to strengthen the reader’s suspicion that exactly the oppo-
site would be more to the truth: Kjartan does feel highly
insulted, the incident with the sword was scarcely “not a
good trick”, as Óláfr has chosen to call it, but more like a
very nasty trick indeed, and the duel between Kjartan and
Bolli will, in fact, provide a source of amusement for oth-