Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.2003, Qupperneq 183
IB 180 8vo
169
58.18, ‘heymti’ 93.19) and, more distinctively, for the semi-vowel /j/
(e g ‘Skyålgz’ 26.16, ‘Jtryå’ 78.17, ‘yåtast’ 82.5, ‘glyupnadj’ 45.16,
‘Jrryu’ 130.7). Two examples of this are noted from Hånd i: ‘lyuka’
(Ijuka) 53.18, ‘flyugandi’ (fljugandi) 110.6.
6. A confusion more familiar among Icelandic scribes is that <s) and
(z), when at or near the end of a syllable, seem to be used interchange-
ably, e g the word (or morpheme) hus is spelt ‘hus’ 22.21-212.14 (x 16)
but ‘huz’ 7.5-212.19 (x 41). /ss/ is sometimes expressed as <sz> e g
‘Jreszu’ 17.10, ‘viszu’ 30.5.
7. A very special feature of both hånds is the confusion between /u/
and /o/ (written <au>, cf forms like ‘laund’, ‘faudur’) and between /i/
and /e/: examples in Hånd i are ‘saumer’ {sumir) 1.16 (twice), ‘Saudur
eigyum’ (Sudureyjum) 1.17-18, ‘fraum’ (frum) 155.13, ‘hlaut’ (hlut)
196.19, 20-21, in Hånd ii ‘hlaupu’ (hlupu) 17.16, 18, 45.12, ‘hlaustar’
(hlustar) 22.16, ‘hlautum’ (hlutum) 82.3. The confusion between /e/ and
/i/occurs in one form only, but in both hånds: ‘hifdi’ (hefdi) 31.13, 33.15,
74.6, 89.12, 126.5, 134.11, 143.7, 169.1 (Hånd i), and 26.1 (Hånd ii).
The occurrence of these exceptional forms in both hånds strengthens
the impression of a near relationship between the scribes. The forms
can possibly be taken as evidence of the dialectal development known
as “flåmæli” (“slack-jawed speech”), attested from the South-West and
East of Iceland in the early twentieth century, but of unknown age and
origin.12
8. Individual word forms. In Hånd i the forms of the noun
kveld/kvold occur 21 times with the spelling (ell) and 20 times with the
spelling <oll/øll>. In Hånd ii the corresponding figures are 4 and 1.
Hånd ii is clearly that of a more experienced scribe. He seems not to
have trouble with metathesis, nor does he use the smudging technique,
where one probably uses the blunt end of the quill, employed by Hånd i
to correct mistakes while the ink was wet. He inserted two words ‘sa
eim’ 40.51, which had been inadvertently omitted by Hånd i, and this
could be another indication of a pupil-instructor relationship. But the
instructor, too, makes copying mistakes, notably the metronymic ‘Drap
laugar sine’ 26.3-4.
Morphology In some words, accusative or dative forms are used for
the nominative and vice versa. This is particularly frequent with kinship
12 Stefån Karlsson in Islensk pjodmenning VI, op. cit. (n. 9 above), p. 9.