The impersonal verb in Old Icelandic

•• h versu .Lari ~ t h a f~' ul. meu ~ .rel.m.l. h' H ra.:..n_-eJ.l. ~ k ~. ( p.vO, he 1 .. 239)
I /
Leio nu a vetrinn. En at v~ri,
./
fa er komit
val" at stefnu(iggum ••• (p.67, 1.269) (tviO examples).
The two impersonal vex'bs of time are 111 eio 'l 2J1.d i1komi t var d •
Cf. p.5, 1.22 (Class V), p. 239 1.57 (Class I).
par til er 6r slltr meo ykkr Hrafr~eli .•• (p.75,1.535)
The impersonal verb is 11 sl{tr 6r: 1
meaning Ii terally "breaks
away" or "concludes!'. So the translation runs II. • until it
concludes ••• n or " •• until all is concluded.
is the best sulJject for the Snglish translation as the
conclusion of the business has greater weight in the sense
./
than the people, Sam and Hrafnk:el.
/ / (
Fa -b ar sx jot tat b ce nu..'TI. p .. 75, 1.556)
English has the equivalent sense and use of IIbera ll
(!lbearll):
"Then it -bOI'e s\viftly to the farm l1 (Ii terally) 01" i1Then they
bore swiftly on the farmtl.
The impersonal construction
increases the relative importance of the bearing swiftly to
the men who did it; the removal of the mention of the doers
of the action throws fUll focus on the action. This is good
story technique for it makes the progress of' the story fluent,
vivid, terse and tight-dravn~.
It is a pity there is no
equivalent English impersonal mode of expression; the nearest
we can get to the sense, wi th the emphasis in the right place,
is: "There was a rush towards the farm'!.
This removes the
agents as in the Icelandic, so the focus is wholly on the action,
cut some of the tight-dravmness is lost through our baving to
convert the action into a noun to suit our English idiom.