| 1. |
-
Från Island till Sverige och tillbaka : Festskrift till Veturliði G. Óskarsson på 65-årsdagen
- 2023
-
Samlingsverk (redaktörskap) (refereegranskat)abstract
- This Festschrift is dedicated to Veturliði G. Óskarsson, Uppsala professor of Scandinavian Languages with a focus on Icelandic, on his sixty-fifth birthday, 25 March, 2023. Eleven colleagues based in three different Nordic countries have written contributions in Icelandic, Swedish, English, and Norwegian, touching on different aspects of Veturliði’s research interests: Lexicology and etymology: Katrín Axelsdóttir (University of Iceland), Enn um ald(u)rnara (Ald(u)rnari once again); Margrét Jónsdóttir (University of Iceland, emerita), Orðið féskylft (About the word féskylft ‘insolvent’); Matteo Tarsi (Uppsala University), Naming the elements in the Nordic languages (Swedish, Danish, Icelandic) until 1945; Morphology: Þorsteinn G.Indriðason (University of Bergen), Hvorfor er suffikset -legur såpass produktivt i islandsk? En historisk utgreiing (Why is the derivational suffix -legur so productive in Icelandic? A diachronic study); Nordic Philology: Aðalheiður Guðmundsdóttir (University of Iceland), Guðrúnarbrögð hin nýju (A new lay of Guðrún); Heimir Pálsson (Uppsala University, emeritus), Forn nöfn — fornöfn (Old names — pronomina); Henrik Williams (Uppsala University), Vart tog Röskva vägen? (What became of Röskva?); Lasse Mårtensson (Uppsala University), Dvergatal i Uppsala-Eddan (The catalogue of dwarves in the Uppsala Edda); and Michael Schulte (University of Agder), Between the pagan past and the Christian future; Sociolinguistics: Ari Páll Kristinsson (The Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies), Bonds and Boundaries and Helga Hilmisdóttir (The Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies), Språkkontakt och pragmatik: En empirisk undersökning av pragmatiska lån i isländska tonårspojkars samtal (Language contact and pragmatics: An empirical study of pragmaticloans in the speech of Icelandic teenagers).
|
|
| 2. |
- Mårtensson, Lasse, 1973-
(författare)
-
AM 557 4to : Studier i en isländsk samlingshandskrift från 1400-talet
- 2007
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The subject of this dissertation is the Icelandic manuscript AM 557 4to, dated to the 15th century. This volume is mainly known for being one of the main sources to Gunnlaugs saga ormstungu and Eiríks saga rauða. The manuscript today contains eight gatherings, and the make-up of it is characterized by a rather large number of defect vellum leaves and no less than 16 lacunae. In two places the script suddenly changes character, which divides the manuscript into three scribal portions, section 1, 2 and 3 (last gathering) respectively.The lacunae can in most cases be reconstructed, regarding scope and contents as well as when they have arisen. The two former factors are analysed through a comparison with textual witnesses as closely related as possible to AM 557 4to. The age of the lacunae is chiefly assessed with the help of secondary manuscripts.In the process of establishing the typological units in AM 557 4to, the macropaleographic and micropaleographic variation in the manuscript is studied, defined within a graphonomical framework as variation on graph-type and allograph level, respectively. Orthographic variation is defined as variation on grapheme level.The micropaleographic variation shows that several differences on this level exist between sections 1 and 2, which indicates that they were written by different scribes. Section 3 shows great similarities with section 1, and these two portions are probably written by the same scribe.The investigation of the macropaleographic variation strengthens the assumption of different scribes in sections 1 and 2, as some sudden changes occur when the latter section begins. There are also some macropaleographic differences between sections 1 and 3.The orthographic investigation concerns the writing of frequent words, the usage of abbreviations and the representation of the ending -ir. Different orthographical habits are found in sections 1 and 2 regarding almost all the investigated variables, whereas sections 1 and 3 are alike but not identical. This investigation also indicates that section 3 was written before section 1.The different studies show that sections 1 and 3 were probably written by same scribe, but section 2 by someone else. It is likely that section 3 from the beginning belonged to the same manuscript as the other sections, but that it originally was placed before the first gathering of the current manuscript.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Mårtensson, Lasse, 1973-, et al.
(författare)
-
Digital Palaeography and the Old Swedish Script : The Quill Feature Method as a Tool for Scribal Attribution
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Arkiv för nordisk filologi. - 0066-7668. ; 130, s. 79-100
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this article, the so-called Quill Feature method is tested as a means for scribal attribution in mediaeval manuscripts and placed in a palaeographic context. The Quill Features encompass a range of measurable features such as stroke curvature and variation in the width of strokes that graphs are comprised of, giving consideration to the angle at which they are drawn. The construction of the mediaeval pen, the quill, creates variation in the width of strokes, most importantly due to direction and force of pressure. It has been assumed that individual patterns can be discerned in this variation. The manuscript chosen for investigation is Cod. Ups. C 61, which contains a number of St Birgitta's Revelations and other material connected with this saint. Earlier researchers claimed that three or four scribes produced this manuscript, and this assertion was tested with the Quill Feature method. It transpired that the resultant values, calculated through measuring the investigated features, were very similar for the pages produced by the same scribe, which means that the method identifies important regularities in the scribal hands. Nevertheless, some of the investigated hands showed great similarities and were difficult for the computer to separate. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of the digital methods of script analysis are discussed. The main advantage of these approaches is that a computer can measure characteristics of the script that cannot be discerned with the naked eye, and with a high degree of exactness. One weakness is that the measurements obtained are given in numbers, and can thus be difficult to apply to the script signs. Furthermore, one single method cannot provide a full description of script characteristics, so a combination of methods, both digital and manual, is desirable.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Mårtensson, Lasse, 1973-
(författare)
-
Dvergatal i Uppsala-Eddan
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Från Island till Sverige och tillbaka. - Uppsala : Uppsala universitet. - 9789150629965 ; , s. 95-120
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article deals with the unique name forms in Dvergatal in the so-called Uppsala Edda, DG 11 (henceforth U). In U there are 16 name forms that do not occur in the corresponding position in the other textual witnesses containing Dvergatal, which is a high number compared to the other manuscripts. These forms are analyzed regarding their probable origin. Are they part of another tradition, bearing witness of U’s depending partly on other sources than the other textual witnesses, or are they secondary forms, originating in scribal errors or reinterpretations of different kinds on the basis of the primary forms? The investigation shows that the divergent forms in U are secondary, and they can be divided into four categories. The first category (four examples) consists of the morphological reinterpretation -inn > -(n)ni, with examples like Náinn > Náni and Óinn > Ónni. This change does not affect the root morpheme, and thus the basic semantics of the names do not change. Instead, the result is that a rather uncommon ending in names is replaced by one that is highly frequent in names. In the second category (five examples) are instances where a morphologically/semantically simpler form in U replaces a more complicated one in the other textual witnesses. Examples from this category are Ánarr > Annarr and Veigr > Viggr. The third category (five examples) comprises name forms having their origin in a scribal error. Examples are Þrór > Þiórr and Eikinskialdi > Eikinskialli. The new forms have probably been regarded as acceptable by scribes, at least as mythological names, which are often obscure, and they may not have been perceived as errors. Thus they do not have to be errors from the scribe of U, but they may have their origin further back in the transmission chain. In the fourth category are two name forms with uncertain origin, Níningr (< Nípingr) och Dramir (< Draupnir). It in unclear how these formshave originated, but a possibility regarding Níningr is that it has been affected by the previous namn in the list, Náni (with both initial and medial 'n').
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
