Sonia Meyer: > I would appreciate a translation of the following entry concerning my > ancestor Kittel Torstensen (from "Hitterdals Boken"). I've typed the letter > o in some cases where it was actually written as an o with a slash through > it, as in forste--the o should have a slash. > Let's make a try.... > Kittil Torstensen skiftet efter sin forste hustru 27/5-1705 paa Sem. > K.T. divided the inheritance after his first wife 27 May 1705 at Sem. [comment: it may be correct that K.T. did this himself (as a private deed between him an the heir(s)), though in a public deed, a civil officer did this.] > Boet eide 2 tdr. og 1/2 qtr. m.b.o. 5 tdr. og 5 meler i s. Sem, ansat til > 375 rd., bygselen ansat til 270 rd. Here I have to make some interpretations. 1) "tdr."="Tønder" (lit.: Barrels), "qtr"="quartinger" (quarter, 1/4 "tønde"), and "meler" are measures of the value of land property. (I am not sure how "meler" relates to "tønder" in this area at this time.) 2) I guess that "m.b.o." means "med bygselrett over", i.e. the right to hire out the property. This right could be owned (and sold) independent of the ownership to the land. (The renter payd to the land-owners, and to the "bygselrett"-owner.) The inheritance owned "2 tdr. 1/2 qtr." and the right to hire out "5 tdr. 5 meler" of (s.= "søndre"?, southern) Sem, reconed to 375 "rd." ["riksdaler"; currency of the time] , the right to hire out the land reconed to 270 "rd." > > Desuten eide han 3 l/1 td. m.b.o. 5 tdr. i Loken, ansat til 245 rd. og > bygselen over l l/2 td. taksert for 75 rd., nettoformue 1267 rd. In addition he owned "3 l/1 td." ["td."="tdr." above] and the right to hire out "5 tdr." of Løken, reconed to 245 "rd." and the the right to hire out "l l/2 td." reconed to 75 "rd.". Net fortune 1267 "rd." > > Som arving motte enkens son av forste egteskap, Sveinung Kittilsen, Vefald i > Seljord. > As heir met the widow's son from first marriage, S.K., [living at] V. in S. [comment: I interpret this as Kittil's deceased wife had first been married to another Kittil, and tey had a son Kittil. A more complete context may show something else.] > Kittil Torstensen var en kort tid beskikket lensmand i stedt for Leif Heibo, > som hadde vist sig "motvillig" . K.T. was for a short while engaged as "lensmand" (*) in place of L.H., whom had appeared "reluctant". > > Den 26/10--1702 indstevnet han samtlige husmaend i Hitterdal, fordi at de > motvillig forholdt ham det hostdags arbeide, som de av ovrigheten var blit > paalagt at gjore for lensmanden. At 26 Oct 1702 he called for all "husmenn" in Hitterdal, beacuse they were reluctant in serving the one-day work in the fall term, which they by the authorities were obligdeg to do for the "lensmann". ["husmann" is the holder of a non-registered property/small farm; "lensmann" is an official servant, but not regarded as a civil officer, local representative of the civil authorities.]

Ivar and Stein, Thanks so very much! Since my Norwegian ancestry is 4th generation in America, I don't know the language, so your help has been invaluable. (I've been struggling along with the Key to Abbreviations in "Hitterdals Boken" and a Norwegian-American Dictionary.) Using your translation and comments, perhaps I'll be able to apply part of this to other entries. The people on the Soc.genealogy Nordic List have been unfailingly generous with their help. Thanks again. Sincerely Sonia Gregerson Meyer Hacienda Heights, California

"Ivar S. Ertesvåg" <ivar.s.ertevag@ntnu.no> wrote in news:d3l7hk$ab2$1@orkan.itea.ntnu.no: >> Som arving motte enkens son av forste egteskap, Sveinung Kittilsen, >> Vefald i Seljord. > > As heir met the widow's son from first marriage, S.K., [living at] V. > in S. [comment: I interpret this as Kittil's deceased wife had first > been married to another Kittil, and tey had a son Kittil. A more > complete context may show something else.] I agree with your translation, except that I think you got one Kittil too many :-) The dead wife had a son named *Sveinung* (not Kittil) from a previous marriage. Since this son Sveinung was Kittilsen (Son of Kittil), the woman was either married first one one man named Kittil, became a widow and married another Kittil, *or* the son used "son of" his stepfather as a patronymic. Smile, Stein

Stein R wrote: > "Ivar S. Ertesvåg" <ivar.s.ertevag@ntnu.no> wrote in > news:d3l7hk$ab2$1@orkan.itea.ntnu.no: > > >>>Som arving motte enkens son av forste egteskap, Sveinung Kittilsen, >>>Vefald i Seljord. >> >>As heir met the widow's son from first marriage, S.K., [living at] V. >>in S. [comment: I interpret this as Kittil's deceased wife had first >>been married to another Kittil, and tey had a son Kittil. A more >>complete context may show something else.] > > > I agree with your translation, except that I think you got one > Kittil too many :-) The dead wife had a son named *Sveinung* (not > Kittil) from a previous marriage. > > Since this son Sveinung was Kittilsen (Son of Kittil), the woman > was either married first one one man named Kittil, became a widow > and married another Kittil, *or* the son used "son of" his stepfather > as a patronymic. > > Smile, Keep on smiling... you are of course right. However - if the text is correctly referred, I think there must be two Kittils. An important fact in the situation is that Sveining had anotther father. But, of course - in addition to me - both the original protocol and the writer of "Hitterdals Boken" might have made errors. > Stein