Talk:Egil's Saga

Norse history and culture High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I corrected the nationality of Egill. Since he was a homicidal maniac, I should perhaps have let it stand uncorrected, me being an Icelander. :-) Anyway, I used it as an opportunity to add a stub about his father. Io 20:11, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the changes as you can see at [1]. I do not know / remember / recall how this happened. I appologise. Please note that both variants of the name are used Egill Skallagrímsson and Egill Skalla-Grímsson. Regards Gangleri 18:11, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

Article name

Shouldn't this be named Egil's saga, in keeping with Njál's saga, and the fact that the "s" is a possessive from English convention? Since the Icelandic is "Egla," then clearly we haven't inherited the spelling from that source. I'd like to see this moved.zadignose 08:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egils saga is the normal Old Norse / Icelandic form; Egla is more of a nickname. Similarly Njáls saga and Njála. Haukur 10:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The form Egils saga seems fine for encyclopedic content written in "normal Old Norse / Icelandic"; however, this is not the case in English where the possessive /s/ is generally marked with an apostrophe. This may be referenced through an examination of published translations into English, which tend to follow the normal grammatical rules of English rather than the source language(s). Dcattell (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't really go by English translated titles.

It might seem fine for "Egil's saga" (so an exception might be made), but in general the English titles are given in the form "The Saga of .. " form which is awkward/inconvenient.

Can you imagine a Norse reference book that filed most of the "sagas" under "S"? Or used forms like "Laxardal, the People of, the Saga of"? See how it gets ugly?

One of the few A-Z refrences that has entries for each saga is the multivolume "Dictionary of the Middle Ages" (Scribner's), and they use the Icelandic/Norse titles.

So let's go by what WP:ENGLISH guideline really says: it explicitly states we should follow "reliable sources" such as "scholarly journals", and scholars writing papers or Enclclopedia entries in English tend to use the Norse/Icelandic form. --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

kveld-úlfur was not a shape shifter

his nickname comes from the fact that he was 'hamrammur', so he became incredibly strong and moody during the nights, like a wolf, but he does not shift shapes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.200.182 (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The saga says that Kveldulf was a shape-shifter, unambiguously Urselius (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation? -- Palthrow (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page 21 Egil's Saga, Penguin Classics, Snorri Sturluson. Translated by Hermann Pálsson, Paul Geoffrey Edwards (1976). ISBN 0140443215, 9780140443219

It says "...there was talk about him (Kveldulf) being a shape-shifter." What I meant was that a term for "shape-shifter" was used in the text, rather than that Kveldulf was physically able to assume animal form.Urselius (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word translated as "shape shifter" in other translations is "shape strong". I gather from translator's footnotes that a "shape strong" person took on animal powers, but not animal form in the sense of the werewolf legends. Another translator says that the "shape strong" would fall into a deep sleep, and while their bodies lay abed they would roam the night in animal form. So, sourses differ.

On the subject of the apostrophe. As it stands, the article sometimes includes the apostrophe, sometimes omits it. It should do one or the other. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm learning now that we have to be careful with the meaning of the term hamrammr or hamremi in Icelandic (inserted in this edit by Sigmund). Cf. Cleasby and Vigfusson [2]

Or you might follow Zoega[3] and say the word has dual meaning. So in chapter 1, people who knew Kveldulf's called him hamrammr, i.e., not in the literal sense of "(1) shapeshifter" but in the sense "(2) seized with warlike fury" (berserks-gangr) -- just as 85.197.200.182 stated.

The indication that the latter is favored is seen when the word recurs in Chapter 27, where a passage reads "It is said that when people take on the character of animals, or went berserk (hamrammir eru, eda þeim er berserksgangr var á)" they are completely exhausted, and Kveldulf was the same way: when his "frenzy" ("gékk hamremmin") wore off, he became weak. Note that the translator Scudder here has rendered hamrammr as "taking on the character of animals" rather "shape-shifting".--Kiyoweap (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophe

I've looked at a number of books, books published in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, and most use the spelling "Egil's". Most books that use the spelling "Egils" are in the original language. It seems standard, in scholarly circles, to translate "Egils" as "Egil's". I propose moving this article, and other saga articles, accordingly, but don't want to do anything that's going to get reverted. Is there any objection? 13:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Norwood (talk • contribs)

I would prefer to keep it where it is, the current title is what's used in the highest quality English sources I have, e.g. McTurk's A Companion to Old Norse-Icelandic Literature and Culture. In Old Norse, Egils is the genitive of Egill. Haukur (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Norwood says "It seems standard, in scholarly circles, to translate "Egils" as "Egil's" but this is really not the case. He probably didn't look far beyond the titles of the English translations of the saga.

Wikipedia policy WP:RS says articles should preferably be built around reilable (scholarly) secondary sources, whereas translations are considered primary sources.

What Haukurth pointed out is that the form Egils saga is common in such scholarly secondary sources.

If you search scholar.google.com,[4] it is rather easy to confirm that "Egils saga" is the form commonly used in papers written in English by such academics at Jessie L. Byock (at UC Berkeley), Theodore M. Andersson (at Indiana U), or Carolyne Larrington (formerly Oxford). --Kiyoweap (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also said that I had no objection to using "Egils", but that we should be consistent, as I'm sure you would agree.Rick Norwood (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the title in Old Norse is Egils Saga, and I have no objection in principle to using the untranslated title, Wikipedia uses Le Morte d'Arthur rather than "The Death of Arthur". If we do that, though, the article (and other similar articles) should be consistent throughout, instead of jumping back and forth between one form and the other. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should retain the Old Norse titles, and that we must remain consistent throughout the articles. Please fix inconsistencies when you spot them. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Norse titles should be reserved for Old Norse Wikipedias. English Wikipedia titles should favor English titles. However, the Old Norse/Icelandic original forms should be duly noted in the content. In any case, with proper redirect pages in place, why should it really matter? Dcattell (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, the best practice should be to use the apostrophe (in English). At least as importantly, the /s/ in "Saga" should be capitalized, since it is a proper part of the title of this work. Perhaps the users of the encyclopedic content provided may be misled by any other form than "Egil's Saga". Dcattell (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music

I thought you fine folk might be interested in this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oYmc9WTdSs

Perhaps the Icelandic speakers can indicate how authentic the lyrics are. — Chameleon 11:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egill vs. Egil (intentionally both used?)

In Icelandic Egill is the correct name, but Egil, Agli and Egils (as in Egils saga, corresponding to Egill's saga in English) are also forms of the name but would look wrong to me in English (with or without the added 's). This is at least the modern Icelandic version but I believe also the ancient form. To me only Egill (and Egill's) would be correct English. Or maybe Egil (and Egil's), if that form is preferred. I think only the former should be used in the article and maybe mention the Egil for once. comp.arch (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this discussion before, and the last time I yielded to the expertise of those who knew Old Norse. This time, I think not. As pointed out above, Wikipedia is written in English, and in English all editions of the saga that I could find are titled "Egil's Saga". The only editions titled "Egils Saga" are written in Old Norse, and I could not find any edition with even an introduction in English titled "Egills Saga" or "Egill's Saga". I'll wait for discussion before doing it, but I think we need to move this article to "Egil's Saga" and standardize the usage in the article. We can mention that it has other names in Old Norse and in other languages. Note, for comparison, the Wikipedia article Don Quixote, not "don Quijote". Rick Norwood (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no objection... . Rick Norwood (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only saw this now. I added to the original above. Wasn't clear. I do not "know" Old Norse, but I know (modern) Icelandic and I believe it's pretty close and assume what I know applies to Old Norse. I came here originally checking out why people say the name is Egil when Egill would be correct. Egil seems to be some misunderstanding in that Egils (as in English Egil's) would translate to the name Egil. comp.arch (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egils saga → Egil's Saga – Wikipedia uses English language punctuation and capitalization, not Old Norse. Also, Egil's Saga is the name most commonly used and most easily recognizable. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might not object to using an English title if correct, but think Egill's would be right. See: [saga]. Note previous section. Maybe this should be discussed somewhere elso also, see Njals saga. Maybe not in some individual pages but some project (Icelandic sagas or litteracy) pages first? comp.arch (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle and I'll leave the experts to decide the particulars. Red Slash 04:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While Egill's might be right in some languages, you have only to look at a list of all published versions of the saga in the English language to see that the universally accepted English usage is Egil's Saga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Norwood (talk • contribs)

Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Proper name and possessive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the desire to use English titles on English Wikipedia, but where do we draw the line for translating titles of foreign-language works? As someone else mentioned, the Le Morte d'Arthur page is not titled The Death of Arthur. Will you rename that page too? And will you also move the pages for Gesta Danorum and Der Ring des Nibelungen to their English equivalents? 76.26.141.174 (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because they're commonly known by their foreign titles in English-speaking countries and those titles are almost never translated! Egil's Saga, on the other hand, is known in English as...Egil's Saga! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In response to Necrothesp: don't you mean that Egils saga is known in English as Egil's Saga? And why is its title commonly translated? 76.26.141.174 (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One version of Þórólfr /Thorolf?

Can we have Þórólfr/Thorolf's name in one version after the first appearance? I would go with Thorolf (Þórólfr) on first mention, and Thorolf thereafter, since this is the English Wikipedia, but the other way around would be preferable to using both versions each time. Nareek (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thorolf Kvelulfsson

I added details on Þórólfr Kveld-Úlfsson, without realize an Thorolf Kveldulfsson page covers the details redundantly.
I'm going to merge the material into the pre-existing page, which will be crossref'd as a WP:SUBARTICLE.--Kiyoweap (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Myrar family

Every Icelander, whose lineage is known for the last few generations, is certainly a descendant of Egill. But what is meant by that family name nonsense in the paragraph? Cheers Werner Vogel (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]