# Icelandic: knappur



## Silver_Biscuit

Sæl,

Ég er ekki viss um hvort ég hafi þýtt þetta orð rétt:


> Hann er trúr hinum fornu sögum en hikar um leið ekki við að nota þær sem breytanlegan efnivið til að skapa úr þessa *knöppu* en áhugaverðu og stórskemmtilegu frásögn um hetjur, ástir og örlög, þar sem ljóð og skáldskapur eru í senn drifkraftur sögunnar og örlagavaldur persónanna. … Á grunni hinna fornu sagna hefur Þórarinn sett saman vel lukkaða og skemmtilega sögu, um skrautlegt upphaf byggðar í Svarfaðardal og mátt skáldskaparins.





> He is true to the ancient sagas but at the same time does not hesitate to use them as malleable material out of which to create this *sparse* but interesting and enormously entertaining account of heroes, love and fate, where poetry and storytelling are the driving force of the plot, and at the same time determine the fate of the characters. … Thorarinn has composed an effective and entertaining story upon the foundation of the ancient sagas, about the spectacular origins of the settlement in Svarfadardalur and the power of storytelling.



In English, if I said that a narrative was _sparse_, I would mean that it is low on detail/embellishment. The Icelandic Sagas have a very sparse narrative style, for example. But somebody asked me what _sparse_ meant and I said at that point that it was the opposite of _dense_, which maybe wasn't exactly what I meant by it in this sentence but in general stands. This person then said that _knappur_ would mean _dense_, not _sparse_. 
If I said that a narrative was _dense_, I would mean that it was heavy-going, somewhat difficult to read, wordy, lots of details. Charles Dickens usually wrote rather dense prose, like Victorian literature in general. You know what I mean.
The confusion arises from the fact that I've seen in dictionaries both the words _tight_ and _scant_, which in this context I feel would mean different things. Basically the opposite in fact. In the context of talking about a book, what does _knappur_ mean?


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

The word _concise_ has since been suggested to me. Something different again. Ég er rugluð...


----------



## Alxmrphi

Silver_Biscuit said:


> The word _concise_ has since been suggested to me. Something different again. Ég er rugluð...


That's what instantly came into my head, but because I knew that thought came from the fact that Danish *knap* means that also (as well as sparse/scanty), I wasn't sure if it was the same in Icelandic. It does make sense because it's contrasted with_ interesting_, in the sense of saying that something is concise is often related to lacking detail, yet we're told that it_* is*_ short or to-the-point - but also interesting and quite funny.

As far as I can tell, Old Norse _knappa_ remained as such until Modern Mainland Scandinavian (i.e. in Danish until today) while in Old Norse/Old Icelandic it became_ hnippa _(along with the whole host of other words that participated in the kn->hn word-initial shift; cf. Dan._ kniv_, Eng. _knife_ & Ice. _hnífur_), which still exists as nudge etc., but then _knappa _was borrowed from Danish with that meaning (including 'concise'). Obviously the cognate in English is 'to nip' / 'nip', which also has connotations of a short and sudden thing. I think that's the correct meaning in your post, anyway.

The only thing I'm not sure about is why it isn't úr þessari.


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Because he's creating the frásögn from (úr) the efniviður, so _úr_ doesn't affect the noun _frásögn_. Because of the way the sentence is worded, I don't think it actually affects any noun... Or at least that's how I'm understanding it. 

Looks like _concise_ is the way to go, cheers!


----------



## Alxmrphi

Silver_Biscuit said:


> Because he's creating the frásögn from (úr) the efniviður, so _úr_ doesn't affect the noun _frásögn_. Because of the way the sentence is worded, I don't think it actually affects any noun... Or at least that's how I'm understanding it.


Uhm, I did consider that but I either don't know that meaning of the phrasal usage (if it's idiomatic) or - at least in a way that would make sense to me, it's missing a "honum" after *úr*. That'd make perfect sense to me. Maybe it's just implied. Ironically I'm reading about object drop in German for a piece of reading I have to do, it looks like this might be an instance of it in Icelandic. It could be either possibility, I read it too quickly the first time and thought he created something from the story, not the 'malleable material'.


> Looks like _concise is the way to go, cheers!_


If it is a fairly short story, then yes!


----------



## Gavril

Silver_Biscuit said:


> Because he's creating the frásögn from (úr) the efniviður, so _úr_ doesn't affect the noun _frásögn_. Because of the way the sentence is worded, I don't think it actually affects any noun... Or at least that's how I'm understanding it.
> 
> Looks like _concise_ is the way to go, cheers!



Is it too late to put in a vote for "terse"?


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Not at all, I have until Monday. Vote registered 

Edit: I'm also toying with _brief_.


----------



## qiaozhehui

The first thing that came to mind when I read your post was "short" or "brief" (a brief but entertaining account). But this is just because that's what the Swedish word 'knapp' means. In modern Swedish, the word more commonly has a connotation of "scanty", "insufficient" or "not quite enough", but I have no idea if this is the same in Icelandic.

Thanks for the etymological info, Alxmrphi. Interestingly, the Svenska Akademiens ordbok claims that the word was originally borrowed from Low German. I imagine that both Danish and Swedish borrowed the word from Low German and then Icelandic got it, as you say, from Danish.

Here's the entry from SAOB:




> efter nt. _knap_, otillräcklig, sparsam, rask, duktig m. m., motsv. holl. _knap_ tätt omslutande, otillräcklig, duktig, rask; sannol. (med grundbet.: tätt omslutande, trång, eg.: hoptryckt o. d.) av germ. _knappa-_





> from Low German _knap, _"insufficient, scanty, swift, capable/efficient?", etc. Corresponding to Dutch _knap_ "tightly enclosed, tight/narrow, capable/efficient?, swift"; probably (with the basic meaning "tightly enclosed, tight/narrow", for example 'pressed together' and similar expressions) from Germanic _knappa-_


----------



## Alxmrphi

Out of all of the options, I definitely think _brief_ works the best. _Short _would be find to be the least marked usage, but I think _brief _is what I'm naturally gravitating towards. Thanks qiaozhehui for the other etymological info.


----------



## NoMoreMrIceGuy

Alxmrphi said:


> Out of all of the options, I definitely think _brief_ works the best. _Short _would be find to be the least marked usage, but I think _brief _is what I'm naturally gravitating towards. Thanks qiaozhehui for the other etymological info.



Brief doesn't quite capture the meaning here. _Knappt_ is most often used in the phrase _knappur tími_ as in barely sufficient time. In the text Silver quoted I would say that the meaning of _knappt_ has to do more with the meager content of the texts rather than the brevity.


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Um, wait, so back to sparse? I have to turn this in at some point today... Luckily brief can also mean limited in content rather than just short, so it probably does capture both meanings.


----------



## Cagey

We sometimes describe writing that contains what is necessary, but nothing more, as spare.  It does not have a negative connotation in this context.


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Yep, great. Stuck with brief, though, reckon it sounds best in this particular sentence.


----------



## NoMoreMrIceGuy

Cagey said:


> We sometimes describe writing that contains what is necessary, but nothing more, as spare.  It does not have a negative connotation in this context.



I would have voted for this one. It captures the meaning best.


----------

