[All]: Jón Sigurðsson (SnE 1848-87, III, 200), Björn Magnússon Ólsen (TGT 1884, 200) and Finnur Jónsson (Skj B and 1931, 202) all agree that the two lines do not cohere syntactically. Kock (NN §2230), on the other hand, points out that verbs indicating a wish are construed with the gen., and he accordingly interprets the stanza as ‘because you have lusted for my beloved, generous Þorketill’. This interpretation is problematic on the evidence of Korm. There are two men of the name Þorkell in that saga: Þorkell í Tungu, the father of Steingerðr, Kormákr’s beloved (málvinu minnar, l. 1), and an otherwise unknown son of his, Þorkell tanngnjóstr ‘Tooth-gnasher’ Þorkelsson. It cannot be said that any of them ‘lusted for’ Steingerðr. While it is true that medieval narratives contain the motif of a father who desires his daughter and frightens or even kills possible wooers (see Kalinke 1990, 41-7), this motif in no way fits what is told about Þorkell í Tungu. Þorkell, fearing for his own and his daughter’s honour, first tries to prevent Kormákr’s visits by hiring men to attack him. When this fails, he betroths Steingerðr to Kormákr, but Kormákr does not appear at the wedding ceremony, which was regarded as a great insult. Þorkell and his son then arrange for Steingerðr to marry Hólmgǫngu-Bersi Véleifsson. Furthermore the syntax of Kock’s interpretation presents a problem. Although Kock is correct in noting that verbs of craving, wishing etc. are construed with the gen., vilja + gen. is attested neither in Fritzner: vilja nor among the examples of such constructions in NS §131; rather, this verb is consistently construed with the acc.