Translation #2

[Michael VanBaaren]

Here is one other citation from a bygdebok that I cannot understand. I
would be grateful if someone could translate. Thanks!

I 1878 selde dei bruket til Einar Pedersen som i 1876 vart gift med dottera
Berta Lisebet, men dei var såpass unge endå at dei tok atterheld in skøyta
at dei kunne driva bruket så lenge dei ynskte Førebels fekk Einar og Berta
Lisebet kjøpekontrakt og vanleg skøyte i 1882.

--
Michael VanBaaren
Sacramento, California, USA
E-mail: van_baaren (at) hotmail (dot) com
Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/mvanbaaren

[Sissil Bruun Sørensen]

In 1878 they sold the farm to Einar Pedersen who was married to their
daughter Berta Lisebet in 1876. But they were still young, and therefore
made the reservation to use the farm as long as they wanted. In the
meantime Einar and Berta Lisebet got sales contract and deed of conveyance.

Sissil


"Michael VanBaaren" <[email protected]> skrev i melding
news:[email protected]...

Here is one other citation from a bygdebok that I cannot understand. I
would be grateful if someone could translate. Thanks!

I 1878 selde dei bruket til Einar Pedersen som i 1876 vart gift med
dottera
Berta Lisebet, men dei var såpass unge endå at dei tok atterheld in skøyta
at dei kunne driva bruket så lenge dei ynskte Førebels fekk Einar og Berta
Lisebet kjøpekontrakt og vanleg skøyte i 1882.

--
Michael VanBaaren
Sacramento, California, USA
E-mail: van_baaren (at) hotmail (dot) com
Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/mvanbaaren

[Ivar Ståle Ertesvåg]

Michael VanBaaren wrote:

Here is one other citation from a bygdebok that I cannot understand. I
would be grateful if someone could translate. Thanks!

I 1878 selde dei bruket til Einar Pedersen som i 1876 vart gift med dottera
Berta Lisebet, men dei var såpass unge endå at dei tok atterheld in skøyta
at dei kunne driva bruket så lenge dei ynskte Førebels fekk Einar og Berta
Lisebet kjøpekontrakt og vanleg skøyte i 1882.

In 1878 they sold the holding to E.P. whom in 1876 got married to their
daugther B.L.. They [that is, B.L's parents] was, however, still as
young that they reserved themselves the right in the deed that they
could run the holding as long as they desired. Priliminarily, E. and
B.L. got a sales contract, and then the usual deed in 1882.


To put it in other words:
"dei" are, apparently, the old couple (that do not feel "old" at all),
who hand over - formally, that is - the holding to their daugther and
son-in-law. However, they still want to be in charge of the holding, and
reserve the right to do so.

The passage says that they "sold" the holding in 1878. However, when you
sell an estate, you get a "skøyte" (title deed?) which is a registered
("tinglyst") document. Probably, "they" and Einar wrote a sales contract
only in 1878. Here, I think this contract was registered in 1878
(otherwise, it would have been hard to know about for the
bygdebok-writer), and then the "skøyte" was transferred and registered
in 1882.

[Trond Engen]

"Ivar S. Ertesvåg" skreiv...

Michael VanBaaren wrote:

Here is one other citation from a bygdebok that I cannot understand.
I
would be grateful if someone could translate. Thanks!

I 1878 selde dei bruket til Einar Pedersen som i 1876 vart gift med
dottera
Berta Lisebet, men dei var såpass unge endå at dei tok atterheld in
skøyta
at dei kunne driva bruket så lenge dei ynskte Førebels fekk Einar og
Berta
Lisebet kjøpekontrakt og vanleg skøyte i 1882.

In 1878 they sold the holding to E.P. whom in 1876 got married to
their
daugther B.L.. They [that is, B.L's parents] was, however, still as
young that they reserved themselves the right in the deed that they
could run the holding as long as they desired. Priliminarily, E. and
B.L. got a sales contract, and then the usual deed in 1882.

The reply is good and probably right, but I will still make a little
note to it: The text actually says "..was married to THE daughter B.
L.,...". Whose daughter she was will depend on the context. Initially I
jumped in my chair because I read it to be his own daughter. That
interpretation being highly unlikely, I supposed that she was the
daughter of the sellers, and that this kinship probably has been
established somewhere earlier in the text. But there is also possible to
construct preceding sentences that makes her the daughter of somebody
else.


--
Trond Engen
Sløv men interessert

[Sissil Bruun Sørensen]

I do not agree with you. The word "dottera" is obviously connected to
"they" - the sellers, and she could not be the daughter of anybody else.

Sissil


"Trond Engen" <[email protected]> skrev i melding
news:%ooTc.791$g%[email protected]...

"Ivar S. Ertesvåg" skreiv...

Michael VanBaaren wrote:

Here is one other citation from a bygdebok that I cannot understand.
I
would be grateful if someone could translate. Thanks!

I 1878 selde dei bruket til Einar Pedersen som i 1876 vart gift med
dottera
Berta Lisebet, men dei var såpass unge endå at dei tok atterheld in
skøyta
at dei kunne driva bruket så lenge dei ynskte Førebels fekk Einar og
Berta
Lisebet kjøpekontrakt og vanleg skøyte i 1882.

In 1878 they sold the holding to E.P. whom in 1876 got married to
their
daugther B.L.. They [that is, B.L's parents] was, however, still as
young that they reserved themselves the right in the deed that they
could run the holding as long as they desired. Priliminarily, E. and
B.L. got a sales contract, and then the usual deed in 1882.

The reply is good and probably right, but I will still make a little
note to it: The text actually says "..was married to THE daughter B.
L.,...". Whose daughter she was will depend on the context. Initially I
jumped in my chair because I read it to be his own daughter. That
interpretation being highly unlikely, I supposed that she was the
daughter of the sellers, and that this kinship probably has been
established somewhere earlier in the text. But there is also possible to
construct preceding sentences that makes her the daughter of somebody
else.


--
Trond Engen
Sløv men interessert

[Ivar Ståle Ertesvåg]

Trond Engen wrote:

"Ivar S. Ertesvåg" skreiv...
Michael VanBaaren wrote:
Here is one other citation from a bygdebok that I cannot understand.
I
would be grateful if someone could translate. Thanks!

I 1878 selde dei bruket til Einar Pedersen som i 1876 vart gift med
dottera
Berta Lisebet, men dei var såpass unge endå at dei tok atterheld in
skøyta
at dei kunne driva bruket så lenge dei ynskte Førebels fekk Einar og
Berta
Lisebet kjøpekontrakt og vanleg skøyte i 1882.

In 1878 they sold the holding to E.P. whom in 1876 got married to
their
daugther B.L.. They [that is, B.L's parents] was, however, still as
young that they reserved themselves the right in the deed that they
could run the holding as long as they desired. Priliminarily, E. and
B.L. got a sales contract, and then the usual deed in 1882.


The reply is good and probably right, but I will still make a little
note to it: The text actually says "..was married to THE daughter B.
L.,...". Whose daughter she was will depend on the context. Initially I
jumped in my chair because I read it to be his own daughter. That
interpretation being highly unlikely,

Not unlikely but impossible. Gramatically, she could be the daugther of
Einar. However, if he got married to his own daugther, the clergy who
conducted this marriage would have been expelled from office and both he
and the couple would have been imprisoned.

I supposed that she was the

daughter of the sellers, and that this kinship probably has been
established somewhere earlier in the text. But there is also possible to
construct preceding sentences that makes her the daughter of somebody
else.

No, I do not think so. Then there would have to be some specification,
e.g. "I 1878 selde dei bruket til Einar Pedersen som i 1876 vart gift
med dottera til grannen Olav [of the neighbour Olav], Berta Lisebet, ...."

As it reads, unspecified, the definite form "dottera" points back to the
nearest preceeding possible person(s). Einar is impossible, thus "dei".