Hl*ǫðr réð hann at kveðja
hauðrs benloga rauðum,
þvít margkostigr mesta
mildingr of vann hildi,
ef hann vildi, en ek veit, at hann vildi.
Trauðr vas lundr af lǫndum
linns fyr þeim at sinna
— svipr varð at þat sverða —
sára polls ok golli,
ef þat olli, sem ek veit, at þat olli.
Hl*ǫðr réð at kveðja hann hauðrs rauðum benloga, þvít margkostigr mildingr of vann mesta hildi, ef hann vildi, en ek veit, at hann vildi. Lundr linns polls sára vas trauðr at sinna af lǫndum ok golli fyr þeim – svipr sverða varð at þat –, ef þat olli, sem ek veit, at þat olli.
Hlǫðr went to claim the land from him [Angatýr] with the red wound-flame [SWORD], because the very splendid generous one waged the greatest war if he wanted, and I know that he wanted. The tree of the serpent of the pool of wounds [BLOOD > SWORD > WARRIOR = Angantýr] was reluctant to leave his lands and gold because of that one [Hlǫðr] – there was a motion of swords [BATTLE] because of that –, if that was the reason, as I know that was the reason.
 of vann ‘waged’: Of is the expletive particle (so most earlier eds). Ok ‘and’ (so both mss) is apparently a misreading of a word Rugman did not understand. Holtsmark (Hl 1941, 72) attempts to retain the ms. reading: því at margkostigr var mesti | mildingr ok vann hildi ‘because the very splendid one was the greatest generous man and waged war’. That rendering is syntactically implausible (see Jón Helgason, ibid.) and metrically incorrect (var ‘was’ cannot occur in this position in a Type C-line).
This view shows information about an instance of a word in a text.