Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.2021, Blaðsíða 176

2.3 Contexts of contact
Section 4 of the introductory chapter (pp. xxviii–xxx) gives an admittedly brief
overview of the contexts of contact between Icelandic and other languages in the
period under scrutiny, as information about these can be retrieved elsewhere in
the extant literature.
As far as OIcel. port is concerned, the date of first attestation given in the dis-
sertation (Alex AM 519a 4to = Alexanders saga [1262–1263], AM 519a 4to [ca.
1280]), is wrong. The word is in fact first attested in Markús Skeggjason’s Eiríks -
drápa, a poem which dates from the 12th century. Having established this, it be -
comes clear that the proposed etymology, i.e. < MLG porte, is untenable. Hence,
Old English would be a likely candidate (so de Vries 1962, ÍOb, s.v. and OED, s.v.
port3) if not ME port(e) even (although Eyvindur Eiríksson 1977 does not men-
tion the word).
It can also be conceded that OIcel. guðspjallari might have been a direct trans-
lation of ME godspellere, as proposed by the second opponent, although I am
skeptical as forming nomina agentis with -ari was a productive strategy in Old
Icelandic. Finally, Frisian loans in Nordic (and thus Icelandic) are a notoriously
difficult field of inquiry and I agree with the opponent that the relevant section
in the introduction needs to be expanded.

2.4 Phonological and morphological explanations: dívísera, klerkr, expens
The opponent somewhat criticizes the at times obscure reasoning behind a num-
ber of etymological explanations. In fact, I did not illustrate in every single case
all the details of the reasoning behind one or the other explanation, hence making
the discussion quite obscure for those who would like to be given all the details
right away. Unfortunately, the structure of the dissertation prevents me from
describing in each case the etymological reasoning behind the explanation given,
especially when I agree with any of the previously proposed explanations. In fact,
one of the aims of the etymological survey was to amend previously proposed
etymologies, whenever deemed necessary.
As far as the three words which the second opponent brings into discussion,
dívísera, klerkr and expens, my answers are as follows.

2.4.1 dívísera
OIcel. dívísera can hardly have come directly from Med.Lat. divisāre, chiefly
because of its age. The word is in fact only first attested in Stjórn I, which dates
from the first quarter of the 14th century (MS from ca. 1350). Cf. also E. devise
(< OFr. deviser, OED, s.v. devise), whose first attestations date from the very
same century. The verb-forming suffix OFr. -er (< Lat. -āre) is borrowed in
Matteo Tarsi176