Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 2020, Blaðsíða 325

That Sievers’ type B is equally necessary may be deduced from verses like
Arbj 4.6 við stirðan hug, where the last, bimoraic noun (hug) has to be stressed to
meet the requirement of a kviðuháttr verse to have two lifts. The discussion of
this verse on p. 117 is rather confusing:
According to Finnur (1886–1888: 435), this line is of type B with the rhythm
x  ǀ x  . The last position should, therefore, be metrically strong and have
a heavy syllable, whereas hug is light according to his criteria. Thus Finnur
accounts for this type of example with a metrical license called shortening,
while Fulk (2016) resorts to linguistic means, seeing a word like a [sic] hug as
a heavy monosyllable when it is at the end of the line. According to Craigie,
however, this position is not strong in the first place.
The problem here is the presumption that a metrically strong position has to be
filled by a heavy (i.e. long or trimoraic) syllable. There is no reason to believe that
there was ever such a requirement in Old Norse metrics, and there is much evi-
dence against it. The restriction known as Craigie’s law, which forbids a trimoraic
noun to fill the fourth position of the verse, must be a restriction on a stressed syl-
lable. Þorgeir claims that the Sievers types and Craigie’s law “directly conflict with
each other” (p. 104), but this is only the case as long as one does not separate met-
rical structure from syllabic quantity: a short syllable may very well fill a metrical
strong (or stressed) position, for instance in the well-known Sievers type A2k (
 ǀ  x). In his discussion on these topics, Þorgeir might have made use of Myrvoll
2016 (this article is in the bibliography, but it is not cited anywhere in the text).
In the classification of the verses of Arbj, Þorgeir still employs Sievers’ metrical
terminology (“A1”, “B1”, “C2” etc.), but as he uses these terms they become empty
labels. They are systematically followed by his own scansions, which in many cases
are highly improbable. Thus Arbj 2.4 skrǫkberǫndum, even though assigned to the
metrical type D3 (in Sievers’ notation  ǀ   x), “should be analysed as svsx” (p.
131), that is strong–weak–strong–restricted. This violates the natural accentuation
of compounds in Germanic, which implies strong–strong–weak–restricted.
Verses of the type in Arbj 3.6 um døkkva skǫr, which Þorgeir correctly assigns to
type B1 (in Sievers’ notation x  ǀ x ), are in similar manner analysed as sequences
of “vsxv” (p. 134), that is with only one strong position. The same applies to the
metrical type C1 (x  ǀ  x), in verses such as Arbj 10.4 á hlið aðra, which is analysed
as “vvsx” (p. 132), also with only one strong position, and C3 (x  ǀ  x), in verses
such as Arbj 1.8 um þjóðlygi, which are supposed to be analysed as “vsvx” (p. 136),
also with only one strong position. It is evident from these examples (among oth-
ers) that Þorgeir is mixing up metrical strength (lifts and dips) with syllabic struc-
ture (long/heavy and short/light syllables). Although they are not unrelated, these
two levels should be kept strictly apart. Moreover, the concept of secondary stress
that is so crucial for Germanic prosody, is missing in Þorgeir’s analysis; this “in-
between” category could either be accentuated in lifts, or suppressed in dips. An
Comments from the second opponent 325