In this article, textual variation with reference to loanwords and respective native words is addressed. Examples are taken from two sagas of the Icelanders, Egils saga Skallagrímssonar and Gísla saga Súrssonar. Whereas, in the former, only one significant instance is found, the latter saga provides a handful of cases worth investigating. In the case of Egils saga, the word pair buklari – skjǫldr is analyzed, and the conclusion drawn is that skjǫldr is the original lectio in the passage. With regard to Gísla saga, three different stemmata are compared and reevaluated in light of loanword/native word lexical pairs ( ambátt – þý , buffeit – kinnhestr , fría – firra , kompánn – félagi ). In particular, the pentalogue developed by Guðni Kolbeinsson and Jónas Kristjánsson (1979) is applied to the cases under discussion and its validity confirmed against the stemmata provided by Finnur Jónsson (1929) and Jón Helgason (1956). In the concluding paragraph, it is conjectured that native lexical strategies underlying the expansion of the Icelandic lexicon do not differ with respect to loanword chronology and that the coinage of neoformations develops noticeably from the twelfth century on, whereas before that time a stronger adherence to learned models is identifiable. This latter result may, however, be somewhat distorted, due to the more limited degree of variation in text typologies before the 12th century as opposed to the flourishing of different Icelandic literary genres from the 12th century onwards.
Instances of loanword/native word textual variation in the manuscript transmission of Egils saga Skallagrímssonar and Gísla saga Súrssonar / Tarsi, Matteo. - In: SCRIPTA ISLANDICA. - ISSN 0582-3234. - STAMPA. - 70:(2019), pp. 87-104. [10.33063/diva-400605]
Instances of loanword/native word textual variation in the manuscript transmission of Egils saga Skallagrímssonar and Gísla saga Súrssonar
Matteo Tarsi
2019-01-01
Abstract
In this article, textual variation with reference to loanwords and respective native words is addressed. Examples are taken from two sagas of the Icelanders, Egils saga Skallagrímssonar and Gísla saga Súrssonar. Whereas, in the former, only one significant instance is found, the latter saga provides a handful of cases worth investigating. In the case of Egils saga, the word pair buklari – skjǫldr is analyzed, and the conclusion drawn is that skjǫldr is the original lectio in the passage. With regard to Gísla saga, three different stemmata are compared and reevaluated in light of loanword/native word lexical pairs ( ambátt – þý , buffeit – kinnhestr , fría – firra , kompánn – félagi ). In particular, the pentalogue developed by Guðni Kolbeinsson and Jónas Kristjánsson (1979) is applied to the cases under discussion and its validity confirmed against the stemmata provided by Finnur Jónsson (1929) and Jón Helgason (1956). In the concluding paragraph, it is conjectured that native lexical strategies underlying the expansion of the Icelandic lexicon do not differ with respect to loanword chronology and that the coinage of neoformations develops noticeably from the twelfth century on, whereas before that time a stronger adherence to learned models is identifiable. This latter result may, however, be somewhat distorted, due to the more limited degree of variation in text typologies before the 12th century as opposed to the flourishing of different Icelandic literary genres from the 12th century onwards.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione