Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.2007, Blaðsíða 207

7-i Jon Eggertsson group
177
IA 4,10,11,12,13,14,16,17
IB 1, 2, 3
II i, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7
To these examples we may add that in a couple of places on one and the
same page Jens Nilssøn has writtenj; for v, presumably from insular
v in the exemplar (ny for nu (37: fol. 30V1. 5, HkrFJ I:111.10), fyndar
for fundar (37: fol. 30V 1. 12, HkrFJ I: 111.19)), without this having
influenced 18(1).
The word suerd in example IB 1 is missing in 37 (fol. 29r 1. 7). The
word is underlined in 18(1) and there are grounds for interpreting this
as marking that the word was missing in the exemplar.113 Even if the
word is filled in without any sort of marking in 35, there can be no
doubt that it was missing in /, since it is also missing in 521, where the
omission is marked by dots.
Nearly all the examples in this section are such that they can easily
be explained as commonsense corrections in 18(1). An Icelander would
as a matter of course know how to correct elementary morphological
and syntactical errors, and would be able to insert words that were
obviously missing in order to make sense of a sentence.
There is in faet only one example, II 4, which is difficult to explain
away as an independent commonsense correction. The example occurs
in a verse and can probably be deduced from the kending, but it must be
admitted that the scribe was very perspicacious if he exposed the form
-gaul- for -gaugl- as a scribal error, although this is not altogether in-
conceivable. Flateyjarbok has -gaul, and in 1912 Finnur Jonsson judged
this form to be original (Skj IA: 23). One thing that does support the
113 Finnur Jonsson interprets it as marking that the word was missing in ): “i 18 un-
derstreget, så at det har mgl. i J” (‘underlined in 18, so that it was missing in )’,
HkrFJ 1:106). Here it looks as if, despite the marginal annotation in 18 about Msc.
Wormianum, Finnur Jonsson considers J (the manuscript) to be the exemplar for
the text filling this lacuna.