Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 2020, Side 336

Editors have used á ‘on’ as a preposition or inserted the preposition at ‘at’ in its
place. This is forbidden in Old Norse poetry as discussed by Hans Kuhn 1929 in
his doctoral thesis (pages 10 and 11). Prepositions are never in-between an
attribute and a noun. It is less of a breach to insert a finite verb because they are
not glued to the following word as are prepositions. Therefore, I believe my pro-
posal is better than the traditional one.
Myrvoll’s third objection regards the first two lines of stanza 11. It involves
my notes to the stanza where I proposed an alternative line-division for Arinbjǫrn
er / oss einn um hóf. Myrvoll claims that the final syllable needs a stress in this
position, but I argue in the thesis that similar lines did not need stress (for
instance magar Þóris in stanza 15). In my thesis, I did not discuss stanza divisions
and I did not discuss current editions of kviðuháttr poems that have stanzas of
variable length. In the kviðuháttr meter, the first line of a stanza contains almost
invariably a finite verb or a conjunction, which marks a new stanza beginning. I
believe it is of importance that this stanza does not need to be an exception.
Myrvoll’s fourth objection regards the discussion of Óláfr Þórðarson on Arbj
st. 15 in 3GT. He and others have interpreted this discussion, but I do not think
their conclusions are the final ones. It would be remarkable if the rhythmic pecu-
liarity of the odd numbered lines in kviðuháttr was not related to the transfor -
mation of syllables that Óláfr describes. I only pointed this out in the thesis for
further study.
In addition, Myrvoll is critical of some statements I made on certain Nor -
wegian linguistic developments, mentioning three items in particular.
1) He corrects a statement of mine on Norwegian vowel harmony. I trust
Myrvoll and other Norwegian scholars on this matter. I only mentioned
the Norwegian vowel harmony because no similar systematic difference
in the use of i and e in endings has been demonstrated in Iceland. In the
thesis I showed that i and e are used differently in open and closed sylla-
bles in the manuscript containing Arinbjarnarkviða.
2) Myrvoll finds it unlikely that an Icelander would have consciously accom-
modated Norwegians by using an abbreviation mark, the tittle, for disap-
pearing -ar endings in Norway, as I suggested. I will look for other expla-
nations in a possible up-date of my thesis.
3) Myrvoll remarks on the Swedish/Norwegian word veklinga that I should
have rendered as veiklinga in an Old Norse form, which I shall also con-
sider in a possible up-date.
Finally, I am grateful for having had this opportunity to clarify some points in
my thesis. This discussion highlights the large number of subjects that I dealt
with and the many interesting subjects that await further attention by myself and
other scholars.
Þorgeir Sigurðsson336