Talk:Rune

Rune is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 26, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

History Start‑class

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Writing systems Unassessed

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about uncited theories on the runic alphabet. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about uncited theories on the runic alphabet at the Reference desk.

General discussion

Not totally sure where this should go so I've added here. With regards to the comment concerning the shape of the Armanen rune Gibor I quote the following from the main page

" The "Wolfsangel", while not a rune historically, has the shape of List's "Gibor" rune." - This is untrue.

The shape of the Armanen runes as envisaged by Von List is substantially different to the form currently used. Who exactly it is that changed the shape of Gibor is open to debate, but it appeared in its 'new form' in the early 1930's. However, if one examines Von List's original documents one will find a somewhat different design, one that bares little resemblance to the 'Wolfsangel'. 90.204.30.249 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Rings

What about the runes from the Lord of the Rings? The LOTR page links here . . . I think that it would make a nice addition. -Frazzydee 00:29, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

They probably ought to have their own separate article, as Tolkien made them up himself and they did not exist historically. Yggdræsil

Good idea. I lost my LOTR runes->english translation sheet- but whoever decides to do that, make sure you change the link on the lord of the rings page -Frazzydee 03:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"They probably ought to have their own separate article, as Tolkien made them up himself and they did not exist historically." is not entirely true. Cirth (Pronounced 'Kerth') looks very much like the ancient runes on this page.

Yes, but Tolkien's runes have completely different phonetic values. Their resemblance is just because there are only so many different symbols you can chisel into wood/stone. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 22:10, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

A few questions

A few questions about the current content.

From the first sentence: "Celtic" doesn't belong here. In just about every sense, the Celtic peoples are not a subset of the Germanic peoples (a few confused Roman authors to the contrary). Also there is not a lot of evidence that Celtic people used runes. There are a few cases of English and Norwegian runes in Scotland (and maybe Ireland) and it's just concievable that Celtic people did these, but seems more plausible it was the English and Norwegians. That's about it. I think the Celtic connection with runes is very weak and not worth mentioning.

From the "Use of Runes" section: "It appears that runes may actually be much older. The rune for the sound æ, as in sAd, was not used in writing for at that time the Germanic Languages didn't have that sound. Yet, in every list of characters it always appeared. However, in Proto-West Germanic æ appears to have existed as a full-blown phoneme."

I am not sure about this. Are there some serious scholars pushing this view? It's entirely plausible that the runes are significantly older than 200AD, since many of them can't easily be dated, and the ones that are easiest to date are the ones in wood, which usually doesn't last that long. I have vague memories of a Roman author 1st century BC mentioning something that might have been runes, sorry, i can't remember any details now.

But this æ argument sounds a bit dubious to me. From your text, it looks like you are saying æ is in (constructed) proto-West-Germanic, but disappeared from West Germanic languages before 200AD. Old English is certainly a West Germanic language, and the æ letter occurs in Old English at dates much later than 200BC. On the continent, West Germanic languages are not written (except possible runic fragments, see below) until about 800AD, so it seems to me to be difficult to say if they had æ or not around 200AD.

Early runic inscriptions on the continent are mostly very short and difficult to follow. If they don't use æ in actual words it may be because the inscription is so short that that letter doesn't happen to be used. It is also difficult to identify the languages for most of these. Some might be Saxon, Friesian, and other West Germanic languages, but they could also be just about anything else.

For runes, West Germanic is not the only game in town. The Scandinavians used runes, and some of their languages have æ still today, i guess they probably did in runic times? There were also the East Germanic languages, and for all we know other lost Germanic branches, and they may well have used runes also.

This brings alternative hypotheses: Runic script could have been invented by Scandinavians or English, or some other language speakers who had æ and then most of the continental Germans who copied these runes had æ in their alphabet but never used it. Or maybe if the runes are based on Greek script as a few scholars think, &aelig could represent a Greek letter that turned out to be not very useful for some Germanic languages. Or maybe the continental West Germanic languages still had æ in 200AD but lost it sometime between then and 800AD.

        Professor (Emeritus) Elmer Antonsen of the University of Illinois presents the case that letter 13, eihwaz, 
        originally represented the vowel \æ\, later lost in Germanic (only to reappear in Anglo-Saxon). This implies 
        that the use of runes as a writing system is somewhat older than previously thought.  
        See Antonsen, Elmer H. 1989. "The Runes: The Earliest Germanic Writing System," in: The Origins of Writing, 
        ed. by Wayne Senner, pp. 137-158. Lincoln & London: University of Nebraska Press

CELTS AND RUNES

The above opinion on no Celtic connection with runes is short sighted and adheres to the old fashioned belief of Celts on one side and Germans on the other and neither the twain ever interacting beyond war. Tribes were often so mixed that separate racial terms often seem so much nonsense.

  The early scripts of the Celts are exactly runic in style and shape. Runes were used throughout the Scottish and Irish areas of the Norse Gael and even sometimes combined with ogam. So from this it is difficult to attach any exclusive racial term to runes and rune use. The best we can say is that they were used by tribes of North European origin.

ThormodRaudhi (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Thormod Raudhi.[reply]

I'm at best an interested outsider when it comes to runes, so i don't really want to jump in and attack this stuff. Do we have an expert who can evaluate it and fix if needed?

I hate to say it, but there are a number of mistakes in this article. For a start, runes were used to write several non-Germanic languages, such as Hungarian. Remote parts of northern Norway continued using the runes until the 20th century (or so I have read). Btw, the English can't have invented the runes - the runes existed before the English did.

I don't know what you want to make of it, but some interesting side factoids:

runic inscriptions in other languages: Sven B.F. Jansson states there are about 80 known inscriptions in Sweden written in latin. (Jansson could be considered the principal 20th c. authority on Swedish runes, I guess). Sorry, I don't have any literature data in anything but Swedish for this. For reference, Sweden has about 2500 rune inscriptions catalogued, the majority in Old West Nordic (local language during the viking age)

I seem to remember reading not too long ago that one runic inscription written in a Semitic language had been found in Sweden.

I think the semitic theory is proposed by one sole linguist in Norway, who is generally regarded as a crackpot theorist who interprets everything he sees acording to his "Semitic Fertility Cult" ahenda. 惑乱分からん 16:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the early 17th century in Sweden, a half-hearted attempt was made to adopt (re-introduce) runes as the official way of writing. Johannes Bureus published a "Runic ABC", meant for use in schools in 1611.
In not uncommon use into the 19th century in Sweden were rune-staves, ie calendars using runes. Graffiti also shows that it still wasn't uncommon for people to use runes instead of latin letters, at least until the 16th century, regionally into the 18th.
the East Germanic language did use runes, at least early on - they are the Goths, and though only few finds have been made, there are, I believe, at least 3 items of (fairly certain) Gothic origin with Gothic rune characters, found in present day Romania and Ukraine and dated between 200-300 AD (time, place and in one case inscription all indicate Gothic context). The later Gothic writings use latin style alphabet (Codex Argentus is a prime example, I'm not sure of the exact type of alphabet used though) and a while later Goths as a body of people and the Gothic language cease to exist. I do not know enough to theorize on their use of ae though ;-)
would a list of literature for the various national collections of inscriptions be interesting? Anything else?

--OlofE

The Goths, by and large, used the Gothic alphabet, an descendant of the Greek alphabet. Hungarian runic is also entirely distinct from Germanic Runic; the similarities seem to be because of the similar mediums used for writing. --Prosfilaes 23:30, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This discussion applied to a very old version of the article, and is some formatting has been lost - the part above the bullets were not by me, and there's text inserted in the middle too - but anyway... The Gothic runes predate the Gothic alphabet and are distinct from it. There are only a dozen or so finds from it. I believe all of them are dated before the assumed invention of the gothic alphabet (c 370 AD iirc). See Gothic language, Ulfilas. // OlofE 00:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Moved from article

Moved here from article:

Was the first article actually written for Nupedia or copied from a reference work? Do we know who wrote the original version? --LMS i WROTE THE FIRST ARTICLE. User:Wathiik

I think Larry is complaining (as am I) that the reference numbers are unclear. Please use footnotes that reference directly into the bibilography of the article itself, and mark page numbers as such. I've given one example that I think is correct, but you'd know better how to match up the references. --LDC

Runic numbers

A question that I did not find an answer for; "How were numbers written in runes?" Egil

I'm not aware of any such application of the runes. And in The Western Mysteries, David Hulse writes, "No record of a true number code for the runes has survived." (This book is basically about alphabets and their related numerical systems, and the esoteric interpretations of same. ISBN 1-56718-429-4 ) RL Barrett 16:07 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

Numbers are written by spelling them out using letters. No figures. The usual way of writing e.g. years, is to refer to some historic event in a measure of man-ages (~40 years). Several numbers are found written on the Rök Stone. Nixdorf 23:25, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For completeness: Late inscriptions (typically 18th century I believe) from Scandinavia occasionally use pentadic numbers - such numbers also appear on the Kensington stone. If I understand correctly, they are irrelevant for "classic" rune inscriptions (very few and no occurrence before 1300?). OlofE 00:11, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alphabet image

I might like to see the alphabet in here as a PNG or GIF image. I can't seem to get my browser to work right with the UTF-8 or Unicode or whatever it is; all I see is squares with four hexadecimal digits squeezed into them. I have similar issues with a lot of the Japanese, Chinese, and other non-Roman alphabets, but it would be a bit much to want words in general changed into images, I know. But I think when the article is about the alphabet itself, it mightn't be too much to ask. -- John Owens 08:03 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. What was the reason for the unicode in the first place? Wouldn't it have been easier to upload an image instead? RL Barrett 16:07 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

(I'm using Mozilla on Windows XP Home BTW) I followed the second external link [1] and wound up at Lars Törnqvist’s Fonts (it's a sub-frame so you'll have to select the Fonts option). I downloaded the Hnias font and it seems to work a treat. HTH HAND Phil 14:19, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

᛫ᛁᛏ᛫ᚹᚩᚱᛣᛋ᛫ᚠᛁᚾᛖ᛫ᚠᚩᚠ᛫ᛗᛖ᛫ᛏᚩᚩ᛫ Crusadeonilliteracy 16:06, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Copyright violation discussion

Well, at least the pictures I uploaded was not copyviolated, since I made them myself. At not all the text either, I think. Den fjättrade ankan 21:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nor were my pictures violations, I drew them myself and none of them appear on the referenced page. I also wrote a lot of text on this page, which is not violations. Nixdorf 05:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Only some of the text is a copyvio; the template message doesn't really have a way to indicate that. Feel free to add your stuff back to a new article at Runic alphabet/Temp (you can get at old versions of the article with the history link). DopefishJustin (・∀・) 05:53, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

If only some of the text is a copyvio, I question the necessity of adding the whole article to the copyvio thing, which the boilerplate on the article page says means the article could very well be deleted. Why not, in this particular case, remove the offending text, give a warning to the person who did the copyvio, and keep the rest? -Branddobbe 06:21, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is then the copyrighted text stays in the article history. These alphabet copyvios (there are several of them) are very old and in many cases are actually the first revision of the article, so you can't just kick out the latest edit from the database. If you feel that just removing the offending text is the best course, you have no less authority than I do; this was done at Latin alphabet for example because the article has just tons of history. Another approach is being taken at Greek alphabet, where the previous article without the copyvio text has been placed on the temp page, with a copy-paste of the history on the talk page to give proper credit. I'm sorry to kind of "boilerplate and run" but I don't really have the time to personally fix these articles. I've already noted on Wikipedia:Copyright problems that they shouldn't be deleted for now. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 15:53, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Removal of redirect from Rune

I am proposing soon to remove the explicit redirect from the topic rune since runes, in the true sense of the word as used, particularly in Norse Mythology, have only a passing relationship to the runic alphabet and it is my intention to fully deal with this topic at some very near point. I will however ensure that a link remains and resolve any links which need attention as a consequence.Sjc 19:23, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I actually already started doing this (just noticed your comment now). I've gone through and fixed a bunch of the old links but there still remains a fair amount left to do. I'll try to get through the rest in the next few weeks. -Averisk 00:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Script/Alphabet

What's the reason for separate articles Runic alphabet and Runic script? -- Pjacobi 00:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

they should be merged! Dbachmann 07:29, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wrote Runic script , mostly because this page was prevented from edits (due to copy-violation) during that time. // Rogper 01:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alphabet map

File:Latin-Etruscan alphabet table.png

Living at Strängnäs, Sweden, I am surrounded by runestoens, usually dated from 'around 1050' on the little sign next to them. Over the last 10 years I have photographed and tried to read rune stones in Sörmland, Västmanland and Uppland. I do not recall any stone that uses any of the futharks depicted in the article. What you see seems to be a mixture of newer Swedish/Norwegian runes and Medieaval runes. Examples: in a:s and n:s, the side strokes cross the staffs, the R:s are rounded, the t:s have a little roof on top. Why does nobody publish the rumes as they were actually used? Klaus Fuisting --217.208.201.168 13:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You certainly have a point in that. I suggest we make an "Alphabet table" of most commonly used glyphs (There is such ones, usually with multiple columns for each glyph style), and split the page into multiple pages: Old Fuþark, Anglo-Saxon Fuþorc, Gothic runes, Younger Fuþark, Danish Fuþ?rk, Swedish-Norwegian Fuþ?rk, Norwegian Mixed Fuþ?rk, Middle Age Runes, Hälsinge Runes, Scandinavian Pointed Runic Alphabet. Lets put them in Category:Runes. // Rogper 14:40, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course we should have a Unicode table and I think something similar to the table on the right (showing the Etruscian alphabet in the example) would be desired, too. // Rogper 10:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HTML / HTML 4.0 characters

Dear Rogper, I can see, that "?"'s are used in the links above. What characters should be there? Hope that you will find appropriate charactes at [2].
To my knowledge it is more suitable (for support in the search function) to use &#decimal_value; or &#hexadecimal_value; then &#characterstyle; where "style" is one of the following: acute (Acute accent, also accent aigu (?)), caron, cedil (cedilla), circ (circumflex), grave (Grave accent), lig (diphthong (ligature), diphthong, ligature), ring (Ring (diacritic), tilde, slash, uml (umlaut, diaeresis), etc.
I do not know if there is another way to represent:
- ā ē ī ō ū Macron.
- double acute accent as in ő
Example: ã (small a, tilde) acn be refered as ã == ã or ã == ã or ã == ã
Some weeks ago I started to look at technical aspects regarding those special characters at en.wikipedia in UTF-8 and other Wikipedias in ISO 8859-1. See also Wikipedia:Invalid article names. I think that the best would be to use piped links as [[Norwegian Mixed Futhark|Norwegian Mixed Fuþąrk]] == Norwegian Mixed Fuþąrk.
See also: Category:Diacritics, Category:Uncommon Latin letters, de:Akzent (Schrift), Breve, Dot (diacritic), Hacek, Ogonek ... Regards Gangleri | Th | T 05:37, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
P.S. Have to take a look also at vovels in Hebrew.

I'm not so very good at HTML characters and had problems obtaining that "cedilla" on the a-character. Thanks for providing me with info. :-) // Rogper 10:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

lot of thinks to do

I could not see many of the characters displayed at the articles refered above. I think that some guidence (a Unicode "how to ..." (sub-)section in those articles) about what fonts to install, alternatives about where you can get them, what browser are supporting those chracters could be added. Articles could be linked to other languages, missing could be translated. The look and feel from many of these articles is quite different. Some efforts could be done here as well.
Hope to be able to identify persons working on this. Regards Gangleri | Th | T 05:37, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

In fact, I have problems viewing the glyphs, too. It doesn't show anything on my computer besides rectangular squares. Do you have Runic glyphs? // Rogper 10:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Script or Alphabet

Isn't this a script rather than an Alphabet? the characters do not represent sounds that can be broken down to pronounce something else, the characters represents full words, like the Chinese script, which should not be called an Alphabet either.

Kay

You're wrong, the letters do indeed symbolize sounds that are used to spell out letters, the names Fehu, Ûruz, Thurisaz etc. are just names given to the letters, similar to how the first three letters of the Greek alphabet were given the names Alpha, Beta and Gamma, but also only represented single sounds, or how W isn't pronounced as double-you in every word containing it. 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 17:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode

Halló! Does anybody know about http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U16A0.pdf and support in Wikipedia? Regards Gangleri | Th | T 02:56, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
I have created at test: (the actual test version where some links do not show up properly) test:User:Gangleri/tests/Unicode ISO 8859-1/Runes/᛫ᛁᛏ᛫ᚹᚩᚱᛣᛋ᛫ᚠᛁᚾᛖ᛫ᚠᚩᚠ᛫ᛗᛖ᛫ᛏᚩᚩ᛫ with runes in the article name and test:User:Gangleri/tests/Unicode ISO 8859-1/Runes. Unfortunately I can not see the characters neither with MS IE, nor with Mozilla Firefox nor mit Navigator. Would be happy to know what fonts I need to install or what I need to do. Regards Gangleri | Th | T 03:22, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Displays fine for me, but isn't test.wikipedia on UTF-8? Then no problem is expected. You can also use the better looking link:

test:User:Gangleri/tests/Unicode ISO 8859-1/Runes/᛫ᛁᛏ᛫ᚹᚩᚱᛣᛋ᛫ᚠᛁᚾᛖ᛫ᚠᚩᚠ᛫ᛗᛖ᛫ᛏᚩᚩ᛫

For fonts always start seeking at Alan's: http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/fonts.html

Pjacobi 10:09, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Pjacobi for the answer and the link. What browser are you using? At [3] I found [4] and [5] and a reference to ALPHABETUM. Is this the only Unicode runic font or is there one available as public domain too? Regards Gangleri | Th | T 18:06, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

I'm using Mozilla 1.7 which does a fine job in automatically selecting the right font for a each character. A good starting point for a wide range of Unicode support is Code 2000, but it's shareware. Quite a few free choices exist for Runic, but I've found that the current version of Caslon actually didn't contain Runic, against its documentation. I have Junicode and Chrysanthi installed, download links for all fonts are on Alan's main font page. Or go directly to

Pjacobi 19:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Pjacobi! I realized that UTF-8 is just a "different" / "another" Unicode standard compared to ISO 8859-1. I made a lot of tests. You can see them at User:Gangleri/tests/Unicode ISO 8859-1/Runes.
Thinks what "we" should do:
- some documentation / recomendation about what brwoser to use, what fonts to install;
- some investigations about keyboards;
- include "runic" sections at articles displaying runic stones, pictures etc; maybe after the runic text a transliteration would be suitable;
- ...
- think about a template (with shortcuts to the items listed above) to be inserted at ...
- bring people interested about this topics together, identify some experts [6], at [7] ([8]) ...
What do you think about this? Regards Gangleri | Th | T 13:01, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Sorry to dampen your enthusiasm, but I have no special interest in Runic. I'm on this page by involvement in Unicode and I18n issues and some amateur interest in Writing systems. So I ended up with some 200 fonts installed on my poor W2K computer. Of course, if you have any questuion I might be able to answer, don't hesitate asking me. -- Pjacobi 19:04, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do think you should include your list of Unicode runic characters in the Unicode section of this article.dab (T) 10:33, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for coming way too late but the instructions here were still of no use to me. Fortunately I managed to find TITUS Cyberbit Basic from TITUS (actually I found the site, wrote a stub on the project and just afterwards found the stub about the font :-)). It worked like a charm on Mozilla 1.7.5 (W2k) without even restarting the browser (page reload was all I did), and was tested on Firefox and IE. -- Goldie (tell me) 10:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Runic script ~~should be~~has been made into a redirect to this page.dab (T) 10:33, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Same with Elder_futhark_script. Also created Category:Runes. dab (T) 15:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Split

The Older Futhark section approaches full article length and may be exported to a separate article (with only the description of the alphabet remaining here) dab (ᛏ) 09:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did that, with the purpose to have more room to discuss individual inscriptions there. dab (ᛏ) 09:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Elder

sigh. it seems 'Elder Futhark' is much more common than 'Older' or 'Old Futhark'. Anynone who wants to clean up the article for consistency is welcome to it. dab (ᛏ) 14:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fac

I feel the article is reasonably cleaned up now, and I'd like to hear criticism from WP:FAC. dab (ᛏ) 16:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

it failed, mainly because of rendering problems of the unicode runic codepage. dab (ᛏ) 11:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Ogham

I agree - Ogham does not belong in this category. Cbdorsett 18:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Etruscan

What about the recent runic discoveries in Italy? Etrusc writings ar at lest 3 to 4 hundred years older than any of the mentioned in this article. Etrusc runes are not new, they are derivates from much older times, mostly agglutinative languages of the past. Beppo on the new theories. [[[User:65.45.172.48]]]

Such information would belong on Old_Italic_alphabet (which needs updating badly) dab (ᛏ) 20:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are no "Etruscan runes"; it's not appropriate to use that word to describe Etruscan.

Meaning of runes

A friend of mine suggested this page, http://www.sunnyway.com/runes/meanings.html, with lengthier descriptions of what the runes mean. I am not sure if this is authentic or new age, but it may be useful to incorporate that information. Radiant _* 11:29, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

see Talk:Elder Futhark. dab (ᛏ)

Images of runes

Someone may want to check the Japanese version of this article where they seem to have found images of all of the runes stamped onto some sort of little metal planchets... We might want to consider using them. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:46, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a modern invention. I have never heard of runes being used on metal plates before. They used to be carved mostly on wood and bone. The fact that most remaining runes are found on stone is because it is a more permanent material.--Wiglaf 19:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I imagine they are modern reproductions of some sort, but I don't see how that's relevant. They have the distinct advantage of being images that are viewable to anyone with a web browser without having to figure out Unicode. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:53, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

They look very good, but I think it is difficult to see the runes on some of them.--Wiglaf 22:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not think they look good at all. They look like an archaeologist just found them. No need to pseudo-age our illustrations... If you want difficult-to-read runes, there is always Image:Einangsteinen_inscription.jpg :o) I do think we should have images of individual runes (maybe to implement a wiki-rune syntax, similar to wiki-hieroglyphs), but they should be plain black-on-white pngs. In fact, someone could just crop the individual letters on Image:Runes_futhark_old.png (I was going to do that sometime. Especially now my linux box broke down, and I can't see my own Unicode runes anymore :o\ )dab (ᛏ) 05:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Danes have done such images at the Danish Wikipedia: [9] :)--Wiglaf 18:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone speak Danish and want to figure out how to get EN some images like that? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:05, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, it'll be fixed in an hour or so.--Wiglaf 18:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here you are : User:Wiglaf/runes, but the jera rune looks strange.--Wiglaf 20:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The West Germanic Hypothesis

The "West Germanic hypothesis" assumes an introduction by West Germanic tribes. This hypothesis is based on the earliest inscriptions of ca. 200, found in bogs and graves around Jutland, which exhibit West Germanic name forms, e. g. wagnija, niþijo, and harija, possibly names of tribes located in the Rhineland.

Could someone provide references for this one? My work of reference says that these forms are Proto-Norse. Should it be rewritten or deleted?--Wiglaf 18:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's from Looijenga [10]. Don't know if it's true, but that's what she says. dab (ᛏ) 07:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I guess this is a typical case of perspective. Scholars studying Scandinavian rune inscriptions call it North Germanic, whereas Looijenga who study West Germanic rune inscriptions call it West Germanic. I don't know what to make of it, since we're talking of a time close to the Proto-Germanic stage.--Wiglaf 07:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it's on page 52f.; she doesn't discuss in detail what is supposed to be West Germanic in these names, but she cites her sources. Maybe we can just say "Looijenga:52f." next to that part and leave it at that (unless you want to dig into her references...) dab (ᛏ) 07:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to cast doubt on Looijenga, but I am a bit suspicious of a theory which asserts that the forms are West Germanic when it is apparently contested, and then connects the forms to unknown and unattested West Germanic tribes as far away as the Rhineland.--Wiglaf 07:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't read her files, my pdf reader freezes. I'll leave it for a while.--Wiglaf 07:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Inspiration to carve /strike runes and form alphabets

Runes are found in the northern hemisphere of the planet because a mucousal oracle bead is concealed [not congealed] and well-protected underneath a roadside limestone chapel in the state of Pennsylvania. The mucousal oracle bead holds a tiny voice strip struck within, and the sight of the voice strip has inspired manual applications of its appearance upon such materials as bark, stone, and clay. Directly from the voice strip itself we can postulate that cuneiforms were the first manual attempt to bring the bead contents to light; and that the runes [rheum, rue, room, roam, run] have resulted from highly opinionated attempts to countermand the effects of the oracle-maker's [o-m] creation. Analogous artifacts include the oracle bones of China, with some acknowledgment of the similar-ity of bone to mucous as a primary physiological secretion. It is a colloquialism to say that someone's nose is "running" or "runny" when the brain mass is discharging mucous during the grief process. Beadtot 22:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf? The words "rune" and "run" aren't even related. They only look similar in modern English. 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 12:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runes in Portugal

there is also a rune tradition in Póvoa de Varzim, Portugal due to Viking explorers and settlers. Althought the tradition of the use of Runes are now declining (due to education, people dont need to use runes no more and decline of fishing activity), after (I believe) 1000 yrs of use.-Pedro 20:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The name "rune" is sometimes applied to signs that aren't technically runes. Could you provide an image of Portuguese runes? It would be very interesting :).--Wiglaf 21:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- I'll try to photograph some examples, though it wasnt used in stones, but rather painted or craved in wood (these can be seen in the First Church - but I'm not in the mood to go to the church :S). I'll try to photograph family inscriptions in the beach (maybe some families still use it, even in here it is declining) and symbols in sidewalks. Some of the symbols in here, I already knew them. I've added some info about that in the article Póvoa de Varzim, in the culture section. People used the runes because they didnt know how to write so when they got in touch with the people from Northern Europe in the 9th century they started using it (many of those people are descendants). BTW they didnt read the runes, they were used as symbols for remembering something or as a family symbol/signature, it wasnt an alphabet.--Pedro 22:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I found this on the net, some drawings were added later like the star of david (because each family must have their own signature): [11] -Pedro 22:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some of the signs do indeed look like runes. However, these signs would not be called "runes" in Scandinavia. They would be called "bomärken". There is no specific term for this in English, but a "bomärke" was a signature that a family put on objects that belonged to it.--Wiglaf 07:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- Yes, that was its main use, at least the one that has prevailed until today. So they didnt create the signatures, they just continue to use that tradition? how the symbols were passed to the children? they would all have the same signature? Or they had a divergent one? What's the tradition on Scandinavia on who rules the family and who's the hair of the family (this is related to the signature), because these two are distincting features of the city in relation to the rest of the country. How the vikings eat, in a table or in the ground? --Pedro 09:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link to an encyclopedia [12], and as you can see the symbols are similar. Some of the signs were only used by an individual whereas others belonged to the farm and were used for generations. I am not sure whether the custom should be attributed to the Vikings. Perhaps, they were a common European tradition in medieval times. The Vikings normally ate at the table, like we do today.--Wiglaf 10:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

nopes. There is no similar tradition in the rest of Portugal and there wasnt in the past. And it is known that they went into the region in the 9th century. I dont know if you know but people from Northern Europe established during some time in the city, i believe 100 yrs. There are proofs of that, even typical desieses from Northern Europe exists, due to that. And a large number of blond people, today especially among the fisherman and the rural areas. I was asking you the rest to see if like the runes, the rest could be related, about the symbols "everyone" knows it is. BTW, what's the cultural relation of the Normands with the Vikings? Another people that was in the region often to stell. -Pedro 17:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Norman and Viking are often the same thing, but in English Norman usually means descendants of Vikings who had settled in northern France. I did not know about Scandinavian influence in Portugal. It is new to me.--Wiglaf 19:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- thx. That's why some say Normads other vikings. Well, in Portugal only the roman heritage is acclaimed. Most backgrounds are ignored, such has the celts. The typical pullovers from the city: [13] the example has also the name in Portuguese, but traditionally only had the runes. The pullovers were bought has white and clean ones, and people imidiately putted their rune and sea motives, as a sign it is theirs. I used to have one. Now these pullovers are very expensive. it was used for festivities and it stopped being massively used because of a tragedy in the sea in 1892. -Pedro 21:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Military use

Hello folks, I cleaned up some sections in the "modern use" section to better organize the mass of information and references there. I did not remove any information but reworded some of it a bit to reflect their moves. The "Military use" is of particular interest, which is something we added to the odal page, reflecting the fact that the modern German military uses the odal rune in a variety of ways. Does anyone know if any other modern Scandinavian or Germanic military use runes similiary? --Bloodofox 08:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so there is a linear design on Bundeswehr shoulderpads that looks like the Odal rune. That doesn't mean much, it's just a simple angular hoop. Unless there is some reference that the Bundeswehr actually said that the design is meant to represent a rune, I don't think there can be any claim that the design is 'runic'. After all, you could go and claim every straight line you see is the "Isaz" rune, and every angle the "Kaunaz" rune. That's silly. Of course, if you have information that the Bundeswehr does describe the design as runic, by all means quote it. Nazi use of runes goes well beyond the "military", and deserves its proper section. dab (ᛏ) 09:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering the controversy runes still cause in post-WWII Germany, I think it's pretty obvious that the Bundeswehr of all militaries knew they were putting the odal rune there when they did this. I assume with just about any other military, It's a reflection of native culture, especially since this rune refers to home. I can see if I can dig something up though for more info to further 'authenticate' it, though all I've found so far is in German, so it's been a bit tough. I'd really like to get a complete list of ranks within the Heer and German Navy that also use it. --Bloodofox 09:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

googling for Odal + Bundeswehr, I find lots of forum postings from people who, like you, have noted the similarity. But no evidence that the design was consciously chosen as Odal rune. Seeing that the rune was used as a symbol by the Hitler youth, it would seem very strange, and I suppose the similarity is a coincidence. But whatever we think is irrelevent, we'll need to find some authoritative source about the history of these shoulder pads. dab (ᛏ) 16:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Thor Steinar

Hello, I've removed the Thor Steinar from the article, which was previously under the Third Reich section. Thor Steinar have repeatedly stated they are not a Neo-Nazi company, that their use of runes derives from Norwegian use of the wolfshook, for example. Placing them in this portion only furthers this misconception, which is disputed by the company itself. Their official site contains no mention of anything remotely 'neo-nazi.' [14] Even if the brand is popular with right wingers, it is also popular with subcultural crowds and sometimes pagans, due to the use of runes. The Wikipedia article about it is also wrong, it unfairly places the company under the 'Neo-Nazi' tag solely because of some of their consumers and the fact that they use, oh dear, runes. I can think of a few polo shirt manufacturers that have had problems alike it in the past. --Bloodofox 21:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find Thor Steinar's old disclaimer. Checkout the German Wikipedia Thor Steinar article for more info:[15] --Bloodofox 21:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Steinar should be mentioned somewhere in the "fascist use" section; the company may be apolitical itself, I cannot judge if their disclaimers are tongue-in-cheek, but it is undisputed that they were very popular among Neonazis, and their court case was notable for the status of runes wrt the German constitution. dab (ᛏ) 09:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bindrunes? Colons? Owner's Marks?

Should this article have a section regarding the runic usage of colons? For example, :OFTEN:RUNIC:INSCRIPTIONS:APPEAR:LIKE:THIS: on rune stones, plus the colon practice has even survived to this day in some Germanic countries, where sometimes you will find words framed with colons in a similar way. What about bindrunes? Maybe bindrunes deserve their own article, or perhaps not, but it'd be good to see a complete history of the bindrunes. I know that they were also used during the middle ages, as well as commonly as bomarke which later spread to Portugal, as someone mentioned here. --Bloodofox 21:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean bindrunes as in two runes sharing the same stave? As far as I know, this was the common way of writing runes, and the way it was implemented was up to the individual writer. Don't think they should have an individual article, but it should definitely be mentioned, as it is the reason why many runic inscriptions are hard to make out for people who expect to see only the rune-forms you find in the neat futhark. (Barend 22:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, or multiple runes being bound on the same stave. Basically, a bunch of runes together forming a unique-looking symbol. These are sometimes used by neopagans these days as signatures or 'seals.' I understand and also agree that most of the 'rune maker' sites you see on the internet are almost entirely based on new age nonsense, with runes on little stones and so forth. However, I think that bomarke/owner's mark could also be seen as a 'bind rune.' In fact, couldn't owner's marks have their own section here? They appear to often be based off of ancient runes, meaning it's an extremely old practice in the region, even before it directly spread to Portugal. It seems this article is missing some integral elements of the runes. What do you think? --Bloodofox 02:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture

we need to branch out a "pc" article soon, we cannot mention every videogame or fantasy novel with a rune in it here. dab (ᛏ) 09:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is really getting out of control. :bloodofox: 22:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Björketorp runestone and Ergi

I wonder about the section of the Björketorp runestone, the word "argiu" links to "Ergi", while the translation gives the modern Scandinavian meaning "anger", maybe someone with better knowledge of Old Norse could check it out and provide a good translation. 惑乱分からん 01:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia prefers not to translate in its own voice if some translation is available. But Proto-Norse argiu does correspond to Old Norse ergi which is why I added that link. What ergi means is a question of interpretation :) - Haukur 02:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. So where does the translation come from? 惑乱分からん 02:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

glyph tables

I am considering adding tables to the individual rune articles, along the lines of those we did for the Phoenician/Canaanite letters, e.g. Gimel. The problem is that nobody has uploaded images of the Futhorc/Younger Futhark glyphs, so I am dumping them on this talkpage for now; help is welcome. dab (ᛏ) 10:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add phoenician/Greek/Latin alpabets for comparison

f

name	Proto-Germanic	Anglo-Saxon	Old Norse
name	*Fehu	Feoh	Fé
shape	Elder Futhark	Futhorc	Younger Futhark
shape
Unicode	ᚠ U+16A0
transliteration	f
IPA	[f]
Position:	1

u

name	Proto-Germanic	Anglo-Saxon	Old Norse
	*Ûruz/Ûram	Ur/Yr	Úr
shape	Elder Futhark	Futhorc	Younger Futhark

Unicode	ᚢ U+16A2	ᚢ ᚣ U+16A2 U+16A3	ᚢ U+16A2
transliteration	u	u y	u
IPA	[u]	[u] [y]	[u]
Position:	2	2 27	2

þ

name	Proto-Germanic	Anglo-Saxon	Old Norse
name	*Þurisaz	Þorn	Þurs
shape	Elder Futhark	Futhorc	Younger Futhark
shape
Unicode	ᚦ U+16A6
transliteration	þ
IPA	[θ]
Position:	3

a

name	Proto-Germanic	Anglo-Saxon	Old Norse
name	*Ansuz	Os/Ac/Æsc	Óss
shape	Elder Futhark	Futhorc	Younger Futhark
shape
Unicode	ᚨ U+16A8	ᚩ ᚪ ᚫ U+16A9 U+16AA U+16AB	ᚬ U+16AC	ᚭ U+16AD
transliteration	a	o a æ	ą
IPA	[a]	[o] [a] [æ]	[o]
Position:	4	4 25 26	4

r

name	Proto-Germanic	Anglo-Saxon	Old Norse
name	*Raidô	Rad	Ræið
shape	Elder Futhark	Futhorc	Younger Futhark
shape
Unicode	ᚱ U+16B1
transliteration	r
IPA	[r]
Position:	5

k

name	Proto-Germanic	Anglo-Saxon	Old Norse
name	*Kaunan	Cen	Kaun
shape	Elder Futhark	Futhorc	Younger Futhark
shape
Unicode	ᚲ U+16B4	ᚳ U+16B3	ᚴ U+16B4
transliteration	k
IPA	[k]
Position:	6

t

name	Proto-Germanic	Anglo-Saxon	Old Norse
name	*Tiwaz	Tir	Týr
shape	Elder Futhark	Futhorc	Younger Futhark
shape
Unicode	ᛏ U+16CF			ᛐ U+16D0
transliteration	t
IPA	[t]
Position:	17		12

Clip art

we have dozens of images of important runic artefacts, and we feature an image of some cheap "fortune telling" runes as an image illustrating "Elder Futhark"? Quite apart . from the dubious merit of generic clip art, modern systems of divination belong to the "modern uses" section. Nobody saw it necessary to give any details about these. There can easily be an article on Runic divination, discussing whatever divination systems people have come up with, and I suppose the image could be used to illustrate that, even though it will not be useful for illustrating the article unless it is explained what is going on in the image (I see two index fingers pointing at an o rune flanked by l and b runes, incised on oval wooden or plastic chips). dab (ᛏ) 15:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalrunes are wrong

The dalrunes in the article are wrong. In fact, the runes claimed to be dalrunes are actually medieval runes (i.e. post Viking age but before c:a 1500AD). The dalrunes were evolved from the medieval runes in the 16th century when the runes were not commonly used anymore in other parts of Scandinavia, so there's a clear connection though. But to claim the general scandinavian medieval runes to be dalrunes is somewhat anachronistic.

Here's a link to how the dalrunes actually looked like: http://www.angelfire.com/on/Wodensharrow/images/dalrunor.gif

This also means that there's no discussion concerning the extremely important medieval runes in the article. (These are probably the runes which were most widely used ever between 200AD and 1900AD.) The time period 1100AD to 1500AD is simply lost, somehow.

Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 17:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I have now traced the guilty edit for this relabelling of the Middle Age runes to "Dalecarlian Runic script" (which later became "Dalrunes", which BTW sounds strange in my ears). Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Runic_alphabet&diff=8265225&oldid=8265221 . So, the guilty guy is some Dbachmann. I wonder what he was thinking about here. And more seriously, why didn't anyone notice during two years this mistake in the article? i mean, the Middle Age runes were extremely important, maybe the most important runes ever used since they were more widely used than the earlier Runic scripts.

Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 19:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Very well spotted. The middle age runes were mentioned already in point 2.3: Common use. But they should definitely be mentioned in the historic overview as well, and the mix-up of Dalrunes with middle age runes was embarassing. I have made an effort to improve matters, maybe others would like to pitch in as well. (Barend 16:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Jesus, "the guilty guy is some Dbachmann" - it's not like I insisted on this or anything; it was, rather, a false conclusion at the merging of Runic script into this article where "Dalecarlian runes" and "medieval runes" were equated, back in 2004, I have no opinion whatsoever on the matter, and haven't wasted a thought on it for 18 months, being busy on Elder Futhark. Now since your link to "Wodensharrow" doesn't work, and since that wouldn't qualify as much of a reference anyway, feel free to present a coherent and sourced presentation of how the Dalrunes rather than being identical to, evolved out of the "Medieval runes". dab (ᛏ) 17:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's conclude that the Middle Age runes and the Dalecarlian Runic script are two completely different scripts, though related through the fact that the latter evolved out of the former. Trust me, the Dalecarlian Runic script in the link looks alright to me. "Now since your link to "Wodensharrow" doesn't work, and since that wouldn't qualify as much of a reference anyway,..." Well, obviously it was a better reference than this article. May this link work? http://www.angelfire.com/on/Wodensharrow/dalrunor.html . I know the following link to an Älvdalen Dalecarlian musical is not much of a reference, but it provides you with a detail concerning the Dalecarlian runic script: http://www.oderwais.org/ ; note the look of the O in the title, i.e., looking like Greek Φ or Norwegian/Danish Ø. (The title Oðerwais is Älvdalen Dalecarlian for 'different'.) This is consistent with the Wodensharrow page, but not consistent with equating the Middle Age runes with the Dalecarlian runic script. What was your source for identifying Dalecarlian runes with Middle Age runes?

Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 17:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

your belligerence is completely unnecessary. Your link [16] seems to rather confirm that our "Middle Age Runes" are Dalrunes. Obviously, I can spot the variants. So instead of all the fuss, you could discuss how some letters like o and q developed variants in the time leading up to 1900. From what point do we talk of "Dalrunes", and if the "Middle Age Runes" are not "Dalrunes", what are they? What are our sources for verifying this? Do we have to travel to Sweden and talk to old folks, or has anybody discussed Dalrunes in published literature? What is required to make a given inscription "Dalrunic"? I know that the defining feature of Futhorc is the ōs rune. What exactly are the variants that need to be present for a script to be "Dalecarlian"? I wouldn't call two scripts "completely different" if the later evolves out of the earlier by introducing a few letter variants. Otherwise we could hardly claim to be using the "Latin" alphabet right now. dab (ᛏ) 06:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beligerence is unnecessary yes, assume good faith mr Persson! I am sure we all want this article to be as good as possible. Dbachmann, your terminology is a bit confusing in your last posting - Saying that "Middle Age Runes" are "Dalrunes" is reversed chronology. The point is that the "Dalrunes" (which I find a strange word) are the latest living relics of the "Middle Age Runes" (which I have renamed "Medieval Runes" in the article for better English). The Younger Futhark survived into medieval times with an expanded inventory, lived and prospered for a few hundred years, then dwindled away until by the 16th century they only survived in isolated areas, of which the last was Dalarna in Sweden, where they were still in use in the 1800s. Over the centuries, naturally, they changed. Therefore, it has become common to give a separate name to the runes used in Dalarna in the 18th and 19th centuries. I wouldn't say the "dalrunes" are completely different from the medieval runes, they developed out of them, and gradually changed some signs over the centuries. Sources telling us this would be any good book on runes. (Barend 15:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Information sources for Dalarna runes

The runes displayed under "Dalrunes" are a generic medieval Scandanavian runic alphabet, with the usual suffling around of c, s, and z (which were apparently fairly interchangable). Try as I might, I can't find a single non-Wikipedia source that ties these specifically to Dalarna.

However, I've found three sources which show Dalarna runes as a mix of medieval Scandanavian runes and modified Latin letters. Starting with The allrunes Font and Package, by Carl-Gustav Werner (2004/01/06, p. 6):

...in the isolated province of Dalarna in Sweden a mix of runes and Latin letters developed, where it was in use into the 19th century.

Werner has a pretty extensive bibliography of academic literature on runes, so I'm inclined to credit him as a reasonable source. (He also has an excellent section on medieval Scandanavian runes in general.)

In addition to this article, I've found several websites which display Dalarna runes:

So far, I can't find any non-Wikipedia source which claims that the Dalarna runes are identical to the medieval Scandanavian alphabets (and if they are, why do they have their own section?).

Unless somebody else has a good citation, I'm going to remove the Unicode examples of "Dalrunes" (which are fairly misleading), and add a note about the frequent mixing of Dalarna runes with Latin letters. The rest of the section seems consistent with the other sources I've found. Thoughts? emk 16:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the second paragraph, which was interesting, but can't be reconciled with any source that I can find, nor with the material we have at Kensington Runestone.

There are other varieties of the Younger Futhark, in particular the Edward-script which can be considered as a variant of the Dalecarlian runes (see Image of Edward-script). In total, about 380 objects dating from 1500–1910 have been found in the provinces of Dalarna, Gästrikland and Härjedalen. The Edward-script was in use until the 1910s in Älvdalen, Dalarna, and also appears on the Kensington Runestone, which to most researchers indicates its status as a hoax.

In particular, the Edward-script looks like a slightly modified Younger Futhark, and certainly not like any of the pictures of the Dalecarlian or medieval Scandanavian runes we currently have in the article. Also, the Kensington article assumes that the Edward manuscript is of uncertain relation to runic practice in Scandanavia. So I'm not confident enough about this material to leave it in, and I'm moving it to the Talk page (as per WP:CITE).

Please, if you have sources for this content, cite them and move it back to the main page. emk 12:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Runestones"

"Runestones: As some people started making runestones in modern times they had a problem with that some modern characters were missing from the older rune alphabeths so an updated version using ruffed runes was created.[1]"

I don't see what the depicted runes associated with this text has to do with modern runestones. The depicted runes look like the runes reanimated in the early 17th century by Johannes Bureus (Svenska ABC boken medh runor (1612), see http://ds.kb.se/?mapp=3&fil=Abc1612-1 ), and they were not meant to be used for runestones but rather to be written on paper like the latin characters. Actually, due to nationalistic felings, there were serious thoughts on introducing the runes as being the official script for writing Swedish back then, and Burues book was one attempt to standardise these runes.

Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 18:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

As far as I can tell that version was developed for use in runestones, but it's based on older runes. The link you provided don't seem to work. I just get the title page of the book. // Liftarn

One only gets the title of the book, yes.

Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 17:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Rune name transliterations in the Germanic languages

I started this from many works I have on runes. I don't have pictures of the runes specifically and don't even have the proper font to display the ones in the article, so bear with me. The first set is my attempted transliteration of the Runic names into Proto-Indo-European in the order of the Futhark, the second set is the order of the futhark and the alternate names in different Germanic languages. (Gmc is Germanic/Proto-Germanic. OE is Anglo-Saxon/Old English, OFris is Old Frisian, ODu is Old Low Franconian/Old Dutch, Go is Gothic, ON is Old Norse, OS is Old Saxon etc.). I attempted very much to make the alternate spellings in the same language and transliteration of each language to be as historically attested as possible. Maybe someone with enough time on their hands can properly incorporate this information into the article, it's been sitting on my computer as a text file for years. If the name has a different root, such as 'sôwilô' "the sun" & 'sigiz' "victory", but is the same rune; I put each instance of the alternate example in brackets. Otherwise, the other examples in brackets are simply unattested forms as far as my sources go. Nagelfar 23:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...

a reconstructed language-root of the futhark rune-names

[IE 'peku']

[IE 'uksen']

[IE 'tern']

[IE 'ansu']

[IE 'réi']

[IE ?]

[IE 'ghabh']

[IE ?]

[IE 'kaghlo']

[IE 'náu']

[IE 'eis']

[IE 'yér']

[IE 'eiwo']

[IE ?]

[IE 'olki']

[IE 'saewel']

[IE 'dyeu']

[IE ?]

[IE 'man']

[IE 'leg']

[IE ?]

[IE 'agh']

[IE ?]

The futhark in the different teutonic languages

Gmc 'fehu'. OE 'fêoh'. ON 'fé'. Go 'faíhu'.

Gmc 'ûruz', 'uhsôn'. OE 'ûr'. OHG 'ohso'. ON 'úrr'. OS? 'ursache'.

Gmc 'þurisaz', ['þurnu']. OE 'þyrs', ['þorn'], ['þornu']. ON 'þurs'. Go 'þauris'.

Gmc 'ansuz', 'ansur', 'ansu', 'ans'. OE 'ôss', 'asc'. OHG 'ans'. ON 'áss'. 'ása'.

Gmc 'raidô', 'raiðô', 'rêdan', 'rêdaz'. OE 'ræd', 'rit'. OHG 'rât'. ON 'reið'.

Gmc 'kaunan', 'kaunaz', 'kênaz', 'kanô'. OE 'cên', 'kên'. ON 'kaun'. Go 'kuzma'.

Gmc 'gebô', 'gâbôn', 'geban', 'giftiz'. OE 'gift', 'gyfu', 'giefan'. ON 'gjöf', 'gefn', 'gefa', 'gipt'. Go 'giba'.

Gmc 'wunjô', 'wunnaz'. OE 'wynn'. Go 'winja'.

Gmc 'hagalaz'. OE 'hægl', 'hagol', 'hægel'. ON 'hagall'. Go 'hagl'.

Gmc 'nauðiz', 'naúþi'. OE 'nîed', 'nýð', 'nôt', 'nêod', 'nêd'. ON 'nauð'. Go 'nauðs'.

Gmc 'îsan', 'ís'. OE 'îs'. ON 'íss'. Go 'eis'.

Gmc 'jêran', 'jêram'. OE 'gêar', 'gêr'. OHG 'jâr'. ON 'ár'. Go 'jer'.

Gmc 'îhwaz', 'eihwaz', 'íwaz'. OE 'éôh', 'îw'. ON 'ýr'. Go 'aihs'. OS? 'iwas'.

Gmc 'perþo', 'perþ', 'perþro'. OE 'peorð'. Go 'pairþra'.

Gmc 'algiz', 'elhaz', 'eiwaz'. OE 'eolh', 'eolh-secg', 'eolhx'. ON 'elgr'. Go 'algs'.

Gmc 'sôwilô', ['sigiz'], 'sôwilan', 'sunniôn', 'sîwila'. OE 'sunna', ['sigel']. [OHG 'sigu'], ['sigo']. ON 'sól', ['sigr']. Go 'saúil'.

Gmc 'tîwaz', 'tíw'. OE 'tîw', 'tiig', 'tîr'. ON 'týr'. Go 'teiws'.

Gmc 'berkanan', 'birkanan', 'berkô'. OE 'beorc'. ON 'bjarkan'. Go 'baírkana'. OS? 'bar'.

Gmc 'ehwaz', 'ehwo'. OE 'êoh', 'eh'. ON 'jór'. Go 'egeis'.

Gmc 'mannaz'. OE 'man', 'mann', 'monn'. Ofris 'man'. OHG 'man'. ON 'maðr'.

Gmc 'laukaz', ['laguz'], 'lek'. OE 'lêac', ['lagu']. ON 'laukr', ['lögr']. [Go 'lagus']. {OS? 'laf'}.

Gmc 'ingwaz', 'inguz'. OE 'ing', 'eng'. ON 'ing'. Go 'iggws'.

Gmc 'dagaz', 'ðagaz'. OE 'dæg'. OHG 'tag'. ON 'dagr'. Go 'dags'.

Gmc 'ôþalan', 'oþilan'. OE 'œþil', ['eþel'], 'oðil'. ON 'óðal', 'odel'.

Old Frisian runes

Ofris 'ac', OE 'âc', ON 'eikr'

Ofris 'easc', OE 'æsc', ON 'askr'

Ofris 'os'

early alternate runes not in the futhark

[Gmc 'warha'], [OE 'ÿr']

[Gmc 'ahwô']

[Gmc 'ahira'], [OE 'êar']

[Gmc 'wôria'], [OE 'ior']

[Gmc 'quaîrnus'], [OE 'cweorþ'], [Go? 'quertra']

[Gmc 'axnâs']

[Gmc 'wai']

[Gmc 'krîda']

[Gmc 'tíwaz']

[Gmc 'ðêi']

[Gmc 'awjô']

[Gmc 'ôkân']

later alternate runes not in the futhark

[OE 'calc']

[OE 'stân']

[OE 'gâr'], [? 'gibor']

[OE? 'wolfsangel']

[Gmc? 'ziu']

[Gmc? 'erda']

[ODu? 'ualð'], [ON? 'ullr']

[ODu? 'wendhorn']

[ODu? 'fyruedal']

[ODu? 'irings']

[? 'aur']

[? 'belgtzhor']

[? 'zil']

More various examples from forms appearing; The following is a list I did at another time from forms appearing in different works, with the Mod. English form which probably isn't always correct and less concern about alternate etymologies.

Fee (Eng), Fehu (Gmc), Fe (ON), Feoh (OE), Faihu, Fé, Feh, Feo

Auroch (Eng), Uruz (Gmc), Ur (ON), Ur (OE), Uraz, Urs, Urur, Urus

Thorn (Eng), Thurisaz (Gmc), Thurs (ON), Thorn (OE), Thuith, Thurisa, Thurisar, Thorunisaz, Thyth

Answer? (Eng), Ansuz (Gmc), Ass (ON), Os (OE), Aesir, Ansur, Ansus, As, Aza, Easc, Oss

Read (Eng), Raido (Gmc), Reid (ON), Rad (OE), Radh, Raidha, Raidho, Raidu, Reda, Reidr, Reidh, Reidthr

Ken (Eng), Kauno (Gmc), Kaunaz, Kaun (ON), Ken, Cen (OE), Chozma, Kano, Kauna, Kaunan, Kaunaz, Kenaz, Kusmas

Gift (Eng), Gebo (Gmc), Gyfu (ON), Gyfu (OE), Gebu, Geuua, Geofu, Giba, Gifu, Gipt, Giof, Gjof

? (Eng), Wunjo (Gmc), Wyn (ON), Wyn (OE), Vend, Vin, Uinne, Winja, Wungo, Wunja, Wunju

Hail (Eng), Hagalaz (Gmc), Hagall (ON), Haegl or Ghaegl (OE), Haal, Hagalar, Hagl, Hagalz, Haglaz

Need (Eng), Naudiz (Gmc), Naudr, Nauthiz (ON), Nyd (OE), Naud, Naudhr, Naudir, Naudth, Nauths, Nied, Noicz

Ice (Eng), Isa (Gmc), Is (ON), Is (OE), Eis, Icz, Isar, Isaz, Iss

Year (Eng), Jera (Gmc), Ar (ON), Ger (OE), Gaar, Jara, Jer, Jeran, Yer

? (Eng), Ihwaz (Gmc), Eihwaz (ON), Eoh (OE), Eihwas, Eihwaz, Eo, Erwaz, Ezck, Ihwar, Ihwas, Iwar, Iwaz, Yr

Port? (Eng), Perth (Gmc), Pertho, Peorth (ON), Peorth (OE), Pairthra, Perb, Perthu, Peordh, Perthro, Perthrold, Pertra

Elk (Eng), Algiz (Gmc), Yr (ON), Eolh (OE), Elhaz, Algir, Algis, Algs, Elgr

Sun (Eng), Sieg (Ger), Sowilo (Gmc), Sol, Sowulo, Sunna (ON), Sigil, Sigel (OE), Saugil, Sighel, Sigo, Sil, Sowela, Sowilu, Sowelu, Solwulo, Sugil, Sulhil, Sulu, Sygel

? (Eng), Tiwaz (Gmc), Tiw, Tyr (ON), Tir, Tyr (OE), Teiws, Teiwaz, Tiwar, Ty, Tys

Birch (Eng), Berkanan (Gmc), Bjarkan (ON), Beorc (OE), Bairkan, Bercna, Berkana, Berkano, Beroc

? (Eng), Ehwaz (Gmc), Eoh (ON), Eh, Oe, Eoh (OE), Aihws, Ehol, Ehwar, Eol, Eow, Eykur, Eys, Ior

Man (Eng), Mannaz (Gmc), Madr (ON), Man (OE), Madhr, Madthr, Madthur, Mann, Manna, Mannar, Mannazold

Leak (Eng), Laguz (Gmc), Logr, Laukaz (ON), Lagu (OE), Laaz, Lagur, Lagus, Laukar, Laukr, Logur

? (Eng), Ingwaz (Gmc), Inguz (ON), Ing (OE), Enguz, Iggus, Ingvarr, Ingwar

? (Eng), Othila (Gmc), Odal (ON), Odal, Ethel (OE), Odhal, Odthal, Ogthala, Otael, Othal, Othala, Othalan, Othilia, Utal

Day (Eng), Dagaz (Gmc), Dag, Daeg (ON), Daeg (OE), Daaz, Dagr, Dagar, Dagur, Dags, Daguz

interesting, although PIE projections of the names are a bit over the top :) note that in Eihwaz I am saying that the Proto-Gmc should either be ihaz or iwaz but not ihwaz. Also note that afaik sigel has nothing to do with 'victory', but is an Anglo-Saxon orthographical quirk for siyel, from *siwel. The 'victory' association is from occultists like List and an indication of brownish connections. dab (ᛏ) 07:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it's a "Siȝel" essentially, I had never thought of that before. I usually think the same association in Ȝodan as Godan/Wodan but these W=G through yogh connections are usually discounted so that's probably why it didn't ever occur to me. What about Laukaz versus Laguz? Lake versus leak? Nagelfar 02:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigel is Anglo-Saxon, while Godan is Lombardic; the "yogh" works only in Anglo-Saxon :) The Germanic name is laguz, English lake is from Latin lacus. I don't know why we would give Laukaz as a possible Proto-Germanic form, that seems to be a mistake. "leak" is a completely unrelated word, meaning "defect". Maybe the idea is that the rune was not named "lake" but rather "deficiency", here? dab (ᛏ) 08:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah, sorry, I didn't pay attention. laukaz is supposed to mean "leek" and is an alternative possibility besides laguz "lake". dab (ᛏ) 08:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Godan is the Lombardic attested form, I always just felt, even though it is noncanonical now, that constructed forms like ON Goðinn, put together the likes of Mod Eng "God" and "Wod" (inspiration, possession as root meaning over the acceptable etymology), but of course every adcademic authority puts them in separate IE roots. Similarly; Is it possible, that the Ger. 'Sieg' as in victory was originally a term for sunbreak or the dawn or some similar association as well? I'm usually a reductionist when it comes to these things; splicing etymologies together when possible. (It seems language usually splits pronunciations into entirely separate meanings and thus new words with time). Anyway, I'm not wanting any argument, I know the Wodan = God is entirely "disproved" with modern word evolution theory. (I personally think it just touches a little too close to home for some and that's the reason why, but that's an entirely POV opinion and I'm not trying to pass it over in any article anymore than it actually exists elsewhere. i.e. no original research) Nagelfar 22:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, sieg is totally unrelated to sun, or to anything related to sunrise; moreover, sigel means simply "Sun", not dawn. Sieg is cognate to echein "hold, have, own", so the original meaning of siegen is pretty much "to pwn". There is no evidence whatsoever that the s rune was connected with this word. dab (ᛏ) 13:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean such a term meant 'dawn' just that it was an attribute of the solar concept, relating it's concept to the word, victory as epiphany, fiat triumphant condition. Though I wasn't aware of any alternate etymology prior. Nagelfar 22:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote Bülach fibula (for the first time inserting "penis penis penis" in a Wikipedia article :P I only hope Tawkerbot will let that pass...) to account for the "leek" meaning. I think that in the current mainstream opinion, people's imagination ran wild here, and I suppose laguz is a safer reconstruction. I suggest we move Laukaz to Laguz. dab (ᛏ) 09:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible, I also read somewhere that it was related to the word "lack" as in a pained condition, suffering. Thus a yearning for something one is without. I'll have to look for where I read this, I'm very certain I have a source claiming such somewhere. Nagelfar 22:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dalarnan": awkward in English

I have never seen the word used outside this article (even after searching for it with Google). Most English-speakers would say either "Dalecarlian runes" or "runes from/in Dalarna". ISNorden 15:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was planning to make that edit soon, after a longish discussion at Talk:Dalarna. "Dalecarlian runes" outnumbers all other variants in the English literature by a huge margin.

Meaning of Perthro disputed

I have read at least six interpretations of that rune's name in different books (some scholarly, some occult). For the sake of NPOV, I recommend labeling the translation of Perthro "[unknown/disputed]", and linking to the name theories in the article about that specific rune. --ISNorden 21:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a "dispute" so much as general agreement that any reconstruction has to be regarded as uncertain. Thus, I suggest it is enough to add "(uncertain)". Note that the same is true for "Algiz". "symbolizes dice cup or womb" is nonsense, of course. The rune shapes "symbolize" nothing, and we do not list hypotheses for what they symbolize, but for what they were called. The shapes are based on the Old Italic alphabet, and the shape of pertho is likely a modification of the B shape. "pear(wood/tree)" is the most likely hypothesis by far. "fart" can be considered a scholarly suggestion, but an unlikely (and maybe tongue-in-cheek) one (especially because it would lack Grimm(!)). "dice cup or womb" appears to be entirely inspired by the rune poem and has no etymological backing whatsoever, afaics. I would be interested in what other hypotheses you have read. The possibility of a link to Ogham and a Celtic etymology (and "fart") has been discussed by Helmut Birkhan if I remember correctly, but he came to opt against a Celtic origin of the name. dab (ᛏ) 14:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I favor the "pearwood" translation myself, based on both the Celtic-cognate theory and the mention of lots carved from "a fruit-bearing tree" in Tacitus' Germania. Granted, the divination which Tacitus describes doesn't involve runes as such: the text itself is older than any runic description and never identifies the "signs" (notae) on those lots. However, given the importance of fate and divination in early Germanic cultures, a similar practice probably survived; the custom of using a special fruit tree for the lots may have given the P-rune its name.

Since you are interested, these are the other theories I have heard about this name:

The "dice cup/lot-box" theory keeps the cultural significance of the name, but has no linguistic evidence to support it. It sounds plausible in the rune poem (gambling often develops from divination practices), but no other Old English text confirms that meaning.
The "womb" theory has only tenuous linguistic support; those who favor it cite a possible Slavic cognate (pizda "vulva"). However, words for body parts are such basic vocabulary that they seldom get replaced: one would expect cognates elsewhere in Germanic, but no such words have survived. It does sound plausible in the rune poem; men drinking together might swap dirty jokes or stories about their sexual experiences. Still, that meaning cannot be confirmed in any other text.
The "rock" theory originated with the Swedish historian Sigurd Agrell, who specialized in early Mediterranean cultures (not Germanic ones!). He asserted that *perthro was a cognate of Greek petros. That claim completely ignores Grimm's Law (as the "fart" translation also does, in the opposite direction). Furthermore, Agrell's other theories about runes and Nordic culture have generally been discounted: among other things, he has asserted that the "futhark" ordering was incorrect and that Norse pagan practices were strongly influenced by Mithraism. Someone with irrelevant credentials and poor knowledge of a subject rarely makes sound conclusions.
The "grave mound" theory appears in the work of one Australian occultist (Jason Cooper). Neither linguistic evidence, cultural evidence, or the rune-poem stanza support that translation; Cooper claims its validity based only on his mystical experiences.

--ISNorden 19:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

interesting. well, the pizda, fart and petros theories all ignore Grimm's law. In fact, the 'pizda' theory is the 'fart' theory, with an ablauting root and semantic shift. The problem is that Germanic p is from PIE b, which was notoriously rare, word-initially, so most words beginning on p will have been loans anyway: pear is a loan itself, but since we know 'pear' was loaned, but we don't know of any word for rock, vulva or fart being loaned, the pear theory must be regarded as the most likely by far. For this reason, it is justified to say '"pearwood"? (uncertain)" here, and discuss the details on peordh. Since the runes are attested from the 2nd century, but the futhark row only from the 5th, it is very credible that there was no p rune to begin with, and that it was created as a modification of b later on, in order to write loanwords like pear. Exactly as in ogham! dab (ᛏ) 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

looking for the earliest testimony of p, I found that there is apparently no attestation in Elder Futhark outside the rune rows (Kylver Stone, Vadstena bracteate). First actual usage is in Futhorc, from about AD 700, and even then only five or six times altogether. An elusive grapheme indeed... dab (ᛏ) 21:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pure conjecture, but was there any connection to the romance rooted word "port", as in a seaport? Place to stow a sea faring vessel, i.e. longship..? Nagelfar 04:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for runic literacy userbox: accepted!

Congratulations to Emk for adding a runic literacy category to the new writing-systems template! So far, he and I are the only listed users; if any of you can decipher runes tolerably well, feel free to update your own userpages now. --Ingeborg S. Nordén 17:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can you please consider observing WP:GUS and place new userboxes in user namespace? dab (ᛏ) 17:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-TITUS sources for Raetic ancestor of runes?

The following material appears to be derived from the TITUS page on the history of the Runic alphabet:

an Old Italic alphabet, more particularly the Raetic alphabet of Bozen-Bolzano, is usually quoted as a candidate for the origin of the runes, with only five Elder Futhark runes ( ᛖ e, ᛇ ï, ᛃ j, ᛜ ŋ, ᛈ p) having no counterpart in the Bolzano alphabet.

Unfortunately, the version of the Raetic alphabet on the TITUS page differs significantly from that in Schumacher's "Die Rätischen Inschriften". This is a widely-cited catalog of Raetic inscriptions. The alphabet it describes generally matches the alphabet on the Negau helmet and the images found on this page).

In particular, I can't find another source that agrees with the transliteration of the Raetic ᛞ as "d" (all the other sources transliterate this as "š"), and several other forms in the TITUS table do not appear in any of the inscriptions I can find.

Does anyone have another source which confirms the TITUS table? If we can't find one, it might be more accurate to cut the history section down to "a northern Italic alphabet" and not get into specific details like "only five Elder Futhark runes ( ᛖ e, ᛇ ï, ᛃ j, ᛜ ŋ, ᛈ p) [have] no counterpart in the Bolzano alphabet". But if someone's got a second source, one which traces the TITUS forms to specific artifacts, we can use it to update the appropriate sections of Old Italic alphabet.

See Talk:Old Italic alphabet for more discussion. emk 00:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh dear, this should definitely be checked. Obviously, I took the information from TITUS. I was myself slightly suspicious of ᛞ, which in any other Old Italic alphabet transliterates to š, and the implication of TITUS that in Raetic, it is d impressed itself on me as convincing evidence of Raetic origin. I shall be very disappointed with TITUS (which is generally a good source) if this turns out to be a mistake. dab (ᛏ) 09:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's suprisingly hard to find photographic catalogs and line drawings for the alpine artifacts (Adolfo Zavaroni's site is actually more comprehensive than Schumacher's standard catalog, which contains only transliterations for many artifacts--have a look; it's really cool stuff).

So there's every possibility TITUS has sources I don't. But until such time as we find an academic paper arguing for Ratic ᛞ -> D (and which supports some of the other close matches), I'm going with the sources at hand. :-( I've sent an e-mail to TITUS; let's see what else they can tell us. emk 11:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I tried to find Raetic sources myself, earlier. After finding Adolfo Zavaroni's site, myself, but having a too hard time reading the scratches, I sort of gave up the idea of finding something conclusive... 惑乱分からん 22:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions for runic magic?

Hello again! A question about the following passage:

Although Norse literature is full of references to runes, it nowhere contains specific instructions on divination or magic.

I don't know of any unambiguous references to runic divination. But there's a series of verses in Sigrdrífumál which sound like instructions for runic magic, the most specific of which is:

Ǫlrúnar skaltu kunna,   ef þú vill annars kvæn
   véli-t þik í tryggð, ef þú trúir;
á horni skal þær rísta   ok á handar baki
   ok merkja á nagli Nauð.[17]

Ale-runes ought you to know,   [lest you wish another's wife]?
   deal not with you in good faith, if you trust in (her?);
on drinking horn shall you scratch them   and on hand's back
   and mark on nail Nauð (ᚾ/"need").

Lee Hollandar translates this in much the same fashion in The Poetic Edda, and Gordon defines rísta as "to cut (runes)" in his Introduction to Old Norse. Cleasby and Vigfusson translate the last line as, "and mark (the character) Naud on one's nail," in their dictionary.

Given the relative consensus around this stanza, and the less explicit instructions in the the surrounding stanzas, I'm uncomfortable with the blanket statement, "[The Norse literature] nowhere contains specific instructions on ... [runic] magic."

I think there may also be something about the use of ᚦ in curses in one of the sagas, too, but I've never tracked it down. So I'm going to strike the "and magic" from the main page. If you disagree, please feel free to put it back. -emk 23:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after a bit of searching, it looks like may be one ᚦ-based curse towards the end of Skírnismál. But those are the only sources I'm aware of with anything like "specific instructions."

I also marked the second half-line above, which (on rereading) is beyond my skill to translate coherently. Oh, well. -emk 03:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I should accept Ǫlrúnar skaltu kunna, ef þú vill annars kvæn alone as positive evidence of the idea of Eddaic "runic magic", and I do suggest you insert this into the article (as well as to Runic divination -- which should maybe more aptly be titled Rune magic or similar). So what do I do if I want somebody's wife then? Scratch n on the back of my hand and a full futhark row on her drinking horn? :) dab (ᛏ) 06:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem to be the advice in the Sigrdrífumál, but in the Hávamál, Odin suggests that persuing other men's wives is a Bad Idea, based on personal experience :-) (verses 96-102, 115, 131[18]).

As for runic magic, there's also some good material in Egils saga (chapter 75), where Egil discovers curse-runes hidden in the bed of a sick woman:

Runes none should grave ever
Who knows not to read them;
Of dark spell full many
The meaning may miss.
Ten spell-words writ wrongly
On whale-bone were graven:
Whence to leek-tending maiden,
Long sorrow and pain.[19]

This sounds like actual written spells (which was typical all throughout Europe at the time), not necessarily the magical use of individual runes.

But as for runic divination, Hávamál 80[20], does seem to hint at some sort of explicitly runic divination:

er þú að rúnum spyrr
when you ask the runes

The next several lines suggest that (a) rúnum should be translated as "runes", not "mysteries" (fáði fimbulþulr especially), and (b) this consultation is considered to be a holy or mysterious process. (I can translate more tonight.)

None of this is conclusive, of course, but it suggests that Runic divination may benefit from some further research, too.

While we're discussing this stuff, can anybody recommend a good translation of the Edda for quoting on Wikipedia? The Bellows translation is way too loose for details like this, and Hollander's translation--though far more faithful to the text--is written in such an archaic style that it requires a glossary.

Ideally, I'd like a translation which is both academically solid, and easy to understand. Any thoughts? -emk 13:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember the quote, but I think that I read somewhere that some word like malruna (language-rune) or something to that extent was used, to clarify that the runes were meant to be read, not to be magical here. That should mean that runes were sometimes used for magic, otherwise, the clarification wouldn't have been necesary... -惑乱分からん 22:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this sounds reasonable to me. Stick to the Facts 04:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant ? Picture source, doctored photo

[[Image:Björketorpsstenen runor.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Closeup of the runes on the Björketorp Runestone :There is something wrong with this picture. Notice Lichen plants which grows under the insctiption :)

Realy irrelevant? Nasz 18:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I can see nothing wrong with the picture - I guess you are aware that stones like the one in the picture are regularly cleaned and that the red paint is not original (although it is generally assumed that the runes on Nordic runestones were initially painted in a red-ochre color) but a modern addition - so it is entirely possilbe for some lichen to apparently grow "behind" a rune because the rune has been recently cleaned and painted. And second, a comment like "There's something wrong with this" is always irrelevant to an article - comments and sidenotes have to stay out of articles, that's what the talk page is for. -- Ferkelparade π 19:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect fixed

The SIG redirect was going to the goddess rather than the rune

Revert linkspam?

It doesn't look like spam to me. I glanced through the article - full of typos, but English is not the author's native language. Here's the link:

Mystery Of The Futhark Alphabet -new edition-

Someone check this out please? Cbdorsett 09:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, the connection between the Germanic Futhark runes and the Turkish Orkhon runes is extremely speculative. We shouldn't link to this fringe theory as a given fact. 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondence table

I created a Runic table at User:Wakuran/Runic_Table with some of the more striking correspondences between the Elder Futhark and the Greek and Latin alphabets. I wonder if it could be useful, or if it's too unwieldy for the article. Probably some of the more probable alternate variants of Etruscan, Western Greek and Old Italic alphabets should be added, as well, if someone has images for these letter variants. Please give comments. 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of the rule to let the sources speak

I am very disturbed by this unsourced statements concercing the West Germanic hypothesis:

"However, it should be noted that the differences between Proto-Norse and other Germanic dialects were still minute and that the classification is mostly based on location rather than forms. References to unknown tribes are received with doubt."

Here the author takes the liberty to evaluate a scholarly investigation without resorting to a valid reference. According to his personal views?

It should be noted: does the writer, a specialist, fail to notice something by himself? If so, I would like to hear so from another scholar (sourced).
The difference between Proto-Norse and other Germanic dialects were still minute. We are talking here about the period 200-500AD, when the first runes appeared. F.i. Lucien Musset (p12) claims that by the fifth century the Germanic languages were already sufficiently different to render communication between the various people impossible. Since few Germanic survived from before 500AD, I think such a claim as if the differences between complete different branches were still "minute" at most a few centuries earlier is hard to believe without reference.
the classification is mostly based on location rather than forms: This statement is a known commonplace against the classical classification system, considered obsolete by many modern specialists. This argument is used to refer to the notion (Schwarz) that North Germanic and East Germanic are more closely related (Gotho-Scandinavian) and are in fact the opposite pole to Continental Germanic (this is West Germanic).
References to unknown tribes are received with doubt : By whom?

The editor fails to review the facts within the new context created to this West Germanic hypothesis by itself. My footnote concerning the most obvious consequence to this West Germanic hypothesis - that the Proto-Norse identity of the first runes would have to be reconsidered before making such a statement since this might even invalidate all preliminary conclusions about language differences - was silently deleted by the author. Indeed, something should be noted before trying to invalidate a theory using loose arguments.

All arguments are put forward to cast doubts on a certain theory. This is not the task of Wikipedia. Although I normally value logic, however, I consider the current arguments shaky, so I think this phrase should be properly sourced or deleted at all. Like this I would easily mistake the phrase for OR and POV. Rokus01 00:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is your removal of this text:

However, it should be noted that the differences between Proto-Norse and other Germanic dialects were still minute and that the classification is mostly based on location rather than forms.

I don't remember who wrote that or when, but I fail to see what kind of problem you have here since the Vimose inscriptions are considered to be Proto-Norse with a few scholars poiting out that they may be west Germanic. The text you removed only states that the differences between West and North Germanic were so small at the time that the categorization of runic inscriptions is based on location. Moreover, I hope you are aware of the fact that West and North Germanic were still part of a linguistic continuum in the area which makes some scholars subsume both as Northwest Germanic (see article for references) a situation which lasted until c. 500 AD. Since you have not given a valid reason for deleting the section, I will take the liberty of reinserting it.--Berig 19:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please display your knowledge of Begging the question in assuming an argument in favour of "differences between Proto-Norse and other Germanic dialects were still minute", with all we know about Proto-Norse being runes theorized here to be West Germanic. Since this kind of phoney counter arguments against such a West Germanic hypothsis are not sourced, I am justified in suspecting OR. The Northwest Germanic theory only has significance within the context of this runes whose "scantiness .... makes it impossible to be sure of the relationship of this language to Germanic and its daughter languages. It is traditionally known as Scandinavian but shows few if any distinctively North Germanic features and MAY reflect a stage, sometimes called Northwest Germanic" (Britannica, 22:650). However, the generally accepted archeological view is explained in Britannica 22:642. 750BC: a relatively uniform Germanic spoken from the Netherlands to the Vistula and southern Scandinavia (by the way, where is Jastorf? never mind); 250BC five general groups are distinguishable, including North Germanic, North Sea Germanic, Rhine Weser Germanic, Elbe Germanic and East Germanic. You see? No Northwestern Germanic mentioned in this list. Indeed, North Germanic + Northsea Germanic + Rhine-Weser Germanic shared a sound change, but the same has been argued to apply to Northsea Germanic and a later stage of (Roman-?)Keltic (k=>sj in cheese and chateaux): this is not enough to assume small differences - I've even heard of sound changes being triggered by language contacts. A language continuum, I agree, but what would this mean more than to assume non-representative local dialects?

"However, it should be noted that the differences between Proto-Norse and other Germanic dialects were still minute and that the classification is mostly based on location rather than forms. References to unknown tribes are received with doubt."

No, I try but can't make any sense out of this all too obvious an example of OR. I would appreciate you could find a source supporting all of this. Who says the Britannica classification is based on location? And so what, does this support your claim that Germanic languages did not differentiate enough to be distinguisable? Who's theory is this and where it says so? And who received the references to unknown tribes with doubt? I really want to know. Rokus01 23:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rokus01, the only reason for classifying Negau helmet as "Proto-Germanic" and the Vimose inscriptions as "Proto-Norse" is their locations. You say that you agree that there was a language continuum (A language continuum, I agree) and the discussion where you want to remove the text as OR (sic.) concerns precisely the Northwest Germanic region where you would later find the "divide" between West Germanic and North Germanic, and where by consequence the local idiom would be most indeterminate and hard to pinpoint. So what are you trying to achieve Rokus01? Why don't you just add a {{fact}} tag instead of removing a quite correct statement?--Berig 03:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, your speculations about the wide dialectal differences within the Nortwest Germanic region before the arrival of written documentation (runes) are exactly what is targeted by WP:OR. Since this theory of yours is your motivation behind your removals, *you* are in fact to be considered in violation of WP:OR, and not the original contributor.--Berig 03:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berig, read and notice I address the objections to a theory for being both unsourced and private. I am willing to add a {{fact}} tag ONLY if the existence of sources -able to support a certain statement- is reasonable to assume. I already explained extensively above why here such is not the case. I summarize:

Without sourced reference, to say the differences ARE minute is as OR as to say the differences ARE big. If you don't want to mention sources and derive your knowledge from unspecified reasoning your are obliged to say at least MIGHT.
No uniform Northwestern linguistic region is generally assumed to have existed after 250 BC. Also, this grouping is not very common or broadly used, having already other and more current groupings. To make others believe otherwise (again, unsourced) is OR and POV pushing. The context of Northwestern Germanic is confined to the disputed runes and nothing else.
You can not defend a theory by refering to a tentative North Germanic "Proto-Norse", the knowledge of which is disputed by this very theory.
The definition of Proto-Norse "by location instead of linguistic characteristics" reduce your objection to the runes being West-Germanic to utter nonsense. The theory holds the runes to be West Germanic based on linguistic characteristics, not location. Indeed, Proto Norse is just a name and would pass over to the West Germanic branch without shedding any light to North Germanic. The name would be reduced to a misnomer without any sense. Don't abuse a possible misnomer for being an (unsourced) argument against this theory!
To my knowledge, nobody ever doubted the existence of unknown tirbes.

In short, the edit is unacceptable "as is". If removal is not an option, I would rather propose the following: "However, it should be noted that differences between Germanic languages still might have been minute. The nomer Proto-Norse would continue to be based on location, without reflecting any (North Germanic) classification based on linguistic forms. References to unknown tribes could increase our knowledge of the Germanic culture, but fail to support new divisions along linguistic lines." Rokus01 22:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rokus, your basic understanding that sources should be responsibly cited is correct. However, you continue to nitpick in an unconstructive manner. It is far from clear what you are trying to achieve, but it appears that it is ultimately about some private obsession of yours regarding Proto-Germanic and the Netherlands. I still don't quite understand what you want, but it appears you have a bee in your bonnet about some native and ancient specifically West-Germanic culture rooted in your native soil. In other words, boring old national mysticism. Instead of trying to insert whatever it is you prefer to believe, you take to sniping at perfectly mainstream statements, which is alwasy possible since, surprise surprise, nothing in Iron Age linguistics is dead certain or undisputed. It is true that the phrasing "minute" could be altered to something less assertive, but that's really it. A minor matter of more careful phrasing, nothing that needs to be drawn out into a vitriolic dispute. The difference between Germanic dialects of the 2nd century AD certainly was rather minor (give us one major isogloss between Proto-North-Germanic and Proto-West-Germanic!) dab (𒁳) 11:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly recent theory on a West Germanic interpretation is impossible to counter with "perfectly mainstream statements." So how do you reconcile mainstream with nothing being dead certain or disputed? Never mind, I think you did a good thing giving more alternatives and giving more details, since only after some effort I understood the comments were made with some kind of Northwestern Germanic view in mind. However, contrary to what you assert, Northwestern Germanic is not "mainstream", it is just also one of many perspectives and possibilities, and definitely different from the generally accepted genesis of the Germanic languages as exposed in Britannica, that certainly does not assume beforehand a common development of North and West Germanic until the 5th century. Only few scholars would readily agree to posing East Germanic in an opposite pole to North Germanic+West Germanic. Please be careful with this word "mainstream", since it gives undue weight to other opinions that might be just yours. Since you like to make a habit of speculating about my alleged hidden agenda, let me make clear to you that sniping against sneering away valuable contributions of wikipedians and scholars alike in the name of some kind of undefined "mainstream" thing is perfectly legal. Rokus01 14:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation, esp ᛭ "runic cross" usage.

The page Runic alphabet give no clue on how the punctuation marks are used. Can someone cite a hint?

Punctuation	Name	Description of usage	Example of usage
᛫	single punctuation	?	?
᛬	multiple punctuation	?	?
᛭	cross punctuation	?	?

ThanX NevilleDNZ 10:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are just used to split a sentence between words (such as the space in many modern alphabets) similar to, and probably inspired by, symbols such as Interpunct. I don't think there's evidence for any difference in usage of the three punctuation marks, and they were probably only used differently depending on the carver's preferred taste. 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 12:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wakuran is right. There were either : or x between words, and no punctuation. To confuse the matter some words could be joined into a single word if the first word ended with the same rune as the initial rune of the second word. To give an example okrimulfr could represent ok Grimulfr ("and Grimulf").--Berig 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an Old Norse, example, btw, where many runes had disappeared/merged with other sounds. At least in Norse Runic writing, there were no double runes in writing, either for double vowel or consonant length. The only exception should be occasional usage when the same rune was used for different sounds, such as a ie/je ("ye") combination. 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 01:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect (based on a "modern example") that the "᛭" runic-cross is actually a form of quotation mark. Can someone comment or provide an original example? NevilleDNZ 05:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as with the rest of the runic blocks, these are really glyphs, not characters. It was completely arbitrary to include those, and not others (like triple dots etc.), or common bindrunes. The Skåäng Runestone has little crosses as word dividers. Other inscriptions use other "punctuation". You cannot say "this or that symbol was used in this or that sense". Frankly, the Unicode encoding of the runic alphabet as it stands is patently pointless, since you'll only ever want to give the runic letters when they are not standard in some way. The block would have had to encode the complete set of letter variants to be useful. dab (𒁳) 07:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ThanX for that. The Skåäng Runestone is a useful example.

The thing that prompted my query is the 1950s/60s German ALCOR (pre-ASCII) computer character set. This character set includes the runic cross, eg http://homepages.cwi.nl/~dik/english/codes/5tape.html#alcor. (and is also refered to as a iron cross). Certainly in Germany - in the 1930s - using Runic characters was "trendy", eg ᛋᛋ. But I would like to figure out why the "᛭" suddenly appears in only the 1960s German ALGOL character set. I guess I need to search elsewhere. ThanX NevilleDNZ 07:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Iron Cross decoration has nothing to do with runes, it is an 1813 design based on the emblem of the Teutonic Knights. Afaics, the character in question is a simple Jerusalem cross (cross potent ☩) and while it may be inspired by the Iron Cross I see no reason to assume it has anything to do with runes. dab (𒁳) 09:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, aside from the Jerusalem cross (☩), I also found the Maltese Cross (✠). Your 1813 vintage cross potent seems quite likely. NevilleDNZ 11:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus seems vague to me

are there really no runes in all of Finland?? EVER. also inscriptions from when?? I still write runes - are those inscriptions? do they count? I think could be better written. also contradicts article as some runes in north America, Russia - are these included in this corpus? is it just stones? or books too? vis. morla stone and http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9529/scanrus.htm be good to know where source is. 17:15, 27 June 2007 User:81.198.49.178

No dispute

I'm not disputing the fact that that Macleod and Mees reference is a valid one but does anyone think that that part should be deleted because there isn't any note to that reference. For all we know the editor could have made that up. If no one responds to this query then I'll assume that no one cares and delete it myself (It's in the magic section). Lighthead ^þ 23:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised

It is incredible how this article is featured, and there is nothing written in it about the bulgarian runes, probably one of the first runic alphabets used in Europe. Here's a table http://mathstat.helsinki.fi/~noykova/Neli%20Noykova%20Finnish%20language%20course_files/image002.jpg and some other things about it http://www.kroraina.com/pb_lang/pbl_2_9.html -- Tangra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.248.190 (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulgarian "runes" are not technically runes, and don't belong in this article, if they are significant otherwise, with scholarly reviews, they could merit their own article, linked to at the article's "See also" section. 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 12:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Bulgarian runes are the same as those treated in the article Orkhon script.--Berig 13:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, by looking at the images linked, the letter shapes don't seem to correspond. Does anyone know anything else about these "Proto-Bulgarian runes"? Know about scholarly works to cite? 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 15:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I have a closer look some of the Bulgarian "runes" resemble cyrillic letters.--Berig 16:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article connects the Bulgarian "runes" to the Cyrillic alphabet although it states that some of the letters are unique. It also says that they were at first thought to be derived from the Orkhon script, because of which the first interpretations failed.--Berig 16:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, this sometimes comes up in Slavic national mysticist fringecruft. We used to have an article on this, but I can't find it now (maybe it was deleted). The Kuban alphabet of the Turkic Bulgars is a bona fide separate topic otoh. --dab (𒁳) 17:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got it, the keyword is "черъты и рѣзы" ("черти и резки"/"черты и резы"). This is the term Chernorizets Hrabar uses for a sign system of the early Slavs. The Russian article is at ru:Славянские руны (!), the English one at Pre-Cyrillic Slavic writing. We could link it from the "see also" section here. dab (𒁳) 17:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Perhaps a redirect named "Bulgarian runes" could go there.--Berig 18:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Czech article on the Interwiki seems (?) to be about a different topic, though. On the image http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soubor:Venedic_runes.jpg , several letters actually seem to be derived from runes (from the younger futhark). 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 18:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's probably because the Czech article is wild-eyed WP:SYN. dab (𒁳) 18:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any Czech, but I tried to read the article cs:Venedské_písmo for sources and historical information, but there didn't seem to be much given. 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 23:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, this is the source used by [[::User:Nasz|Nasz]] ([[::User talk:Nasz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Nasz|contribs]]) in his original article on the topic: an attempt to identify the Kuban inscriptions with the alleged Slavic "черъты и рѣзы" (viz., Slavic decipherment of Turkic inscriptions). dab (𒁳) 20:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! Skimming it, I thought the text looked plausible until he began to talk about the Phaistos Disc and Osiris.--Berig 20:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rune "Uruz"

It seems that when I see the image version of Uruz here on Wikipedia, it is a straight line with another line pointing out to the side reaching the bottom. I've only seen this with Junicode. Every other runic font I have used (Code2001, Skiers, etc) or seen has a "staple style" uruz which looks like the corresponding character in the Gothic alphabet. Which one is correct here? Jacques Pirat ^Talk 22:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

both variants (and intermediate forms) occur from early times. E.g. compare the shapes of Kylver with Seeland-II-C, Tjorkö and Stentoften. --dab (𒁳) 15:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the problem with unicode is that it only shows a fraction of all the forms that runes took in the inscriptions and in the various forms of the Younger futhark, see e.g. ansuz rune. I am considering scanning pictures from a book I have, but that would take some time.--Berig 15:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is not really a "problem" of Unicode as such, since Unicode was never intended to render epigraphy in the first place. We could devise a library of glyph shapes for Wikipedia and discuss them at Runic paleography or similar. A dedicated OTF font could be built to address all glyph variants and ligatures needed, but this will be useless for the purposes of internet typography. --dab (𒁳) 15:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you. Jacques Pirat ^Talk 20:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of runic inscriptions per square kilometer

I removed the calculations of the number of runic inscriptions in the Scandinavian countries divided by the area of the Scandinavian countries in square kilometers. First of all, it clearly qualifies as Original Research, but more importantly, it's irrelevant and misleading, for these reasons: The calculations are based on the area of the Nordic countries, as of 2007. The present borders of Denmark date from after the first world war, and of Sweden and Norway also from modern times. The number of square kilometers these countries make up today bears no relevance to the world in which the runic inscriptions were made. Norway and Sweden contain large tracts of uninhabited mountains and forests, which Denmark does not. The northern parts of Sweden and Norway were not populated, or at least only very scarcely, by old Norse speaking rune-users in the time period when runes were used. About one sixth of the area of Norway, as used in the table, is made up of Svalbard, which wasn't even discovered until the 12th century (probably), and even today only has a semi-permanent population. If one wants to say something meaningful about the geographical distribution of runic inscriptions, this isn't the way to do it, this is just a meaningless game with numbers. What could be interesting is pointing out clusters of runic inscriptions, smaller areas where especially large numbers might have been found (such as the Bryggen inscriptions in Bergen, or the Maeshowe inscriptions), and so on. --Barend (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There might be some merit in doing this by province though. Also, a scatterplot of find locations would be excellent (do we have the data for this?) dab (𒁳) 17:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I where the one who added the number of runic inscriptions per square kilometer. I agree that info about clusters of runic inscriptions would be awesome. But none of the less a "per square kilometer" row, is in my opinion not at all misleading in any way. It's not a competition, about where there are most runic inscriptions or anything. Svalbard being a part of Norway, now and not then, is not the point. It's a standard statistic info, witch inform of the whereabouts of the Vikings, and indeed the viking placements of the rune stones, in the country borders we know now. Just as number of runic inscriptions are placed in. I only added calculations for the Scandinavian countries, hoping others would add, calculations for the others. This is my first talk page edit, hope I'm doing it right. UlrikOldenburg (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is, as Barend has pointed out, that the current sizes of the countries of Sweden and Norway has nothing to do with the size of historical Sweden and Norway.They are, rather, determined by the amount of land stretching north from the polar circle, which was uninhabited anyway, so that a calculation along the lines you propose would be meaningless. dab (𒁳) 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Staveless runes

Staveless runes lack HORIZONTAL strokes, NOT vertical. You can see this clearly in the image. Also, a stave (aka "staff") is a horizontal bar. It's obvious what it should be but someone keeps changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.170.20 (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look it up in any reference work. The staffs are the vertical strokes. Staveless runes lack them.--Barend (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will you link me then please? The image for Staveless Runes contains MANY vertical strokes and not a single horizontal one. Saying they lack vertical strokes when the image shows plenty of vertical strokes is quite contradictory. I agree with 206.126.170.20 ·:RedAugust (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what are you talking about? None of the runes have any horizontal strokes, that has nothing to do with it. The point is that all of the Younger Futhark have a full length vertical stroke, while only two of the staveless ones do (and these consist of the stroke, they are not attached to it). dab (𒁳) 17:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK that makes a LOT more sense. To anyone who doesn't make that connection (such as myself and the above) it's very ambiguous. I think it should be edited to be worded the way you've just done. ·:RedAugust (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

feel free to have a go :) --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal icon placement

FYI, you can add a link to Portal:Norway in this article, by placing {{Portal|Norway|Nuvola Norwegian flag.svg}} at the top of the see also section (or the external links section if the article has no see also section). This will display

Cirt (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nasal a

However, the first A in the fuþark was nasal, hence originally close to an o.

Hi, what is the above supposed to mean? Nasality of vowels can be independent from vowel quality (in terms of formant frequencies). --Kjoonlee 16:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it means that the original sound, which was a nasal a, turned into an o-phoneme in Anglo-Saxon.--Berig (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is difficult. The /a/ itself wasn't nasal, the /a/ in the word *ansuz just became nasal because of the following /n/. But the association of the a rune with its name ansuz > áss appears to have been so strong that the letter value itself has assumed nasality, so that both in the younger and the Anglo-Saxon row, a new rune for /a/ proper was needed. dab (𒁳) 09:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual letter articles

The discussion was moved to the runic studies talk page on 22 May 2008.

there is some discussion on what to do with the articles on the individual runes. Many of them are certainly stubby and need attention. Although it is better to have an informative stub than a rambling page of nonsense. [[::User:Bloodofox|Bloodofox]] ([[::User talk:Bloodofox|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Bloodofox|contribs]]) thinks they are a "mess" in need of standardization. See here and here. We are looking at the following issues:

this is clearly an article series, tied together by the {{Runes}} navbox. However the nature of the various articles isn't uniform. Some runes are attested in all rows without complications (Fehu), some are in all rows but have a complicated history (Ansuz). Some are not in the Younger Futhark and hence best known from Anglo-Saxon (Gyfu). Some are not in the Elder Futhark (Yr rune, Ear rune).
due to this heterogenous situation, it is difficult to pick the best article title per WP:NAME. Bloodofox recently moved all Elder Futhark rune articles the Proto-Germanic name, including the asterisk (*Fehu). In the case of thej rune, he chose the stem (because of an uncertainty of reconstruction), *Jēra-, but in other cases of uncertainty, he just chose one possibility, as in *Ûruz (rune) (why the disambiguating "(rune)" I'm not sure. I have reverted these moves as undiscussed, but I recognize we can discuss this. I do not think it makes sense to stick to a single over-arching naming principle, because of the complicated situation of these names. For example, Peorð is an Elder Futhark rune, but it is pointless to move it to a Common Germanic title (with or without asterisk), because such a name simply isn't known. The Anglo-Saxon name Peorð is arguable, but perhaps the simple title P rune would be more satisfactory. In fact, a system if F rune, U rune etc. would be the only "unified" approach that I can see as making sense. But do we want that?
the asterisk in reconstructed article titles (Wodanaz, Perkwunos etc.) is an independent question. I am clearly opposed to it. I don't think it will fly, at all, with WP:NAME. Technical special characters should be avoided in article titles if possible. For this, look to mathematics topics: we have Chi-square test, not χ² test, for good reasons. If the mathematicians can title that article "Chi-square test", we certainly can do with Jēran or even Jeran over *Jēra- and Perkwunos over *Perkʷunos.

anyway, informed third opinions are welcome. I am presenting the question here (as boo should have done) to allow centralized discussion between interested parties. I would certainly welcome further expansion and cleanup of the rune articles as long as it happens with expertise and circumspection. If there is an interest in "standardization" of these articles, I refer to the thought I have put into "infoboxes" further up on this page (February 2006). this arrangement is flexible enough to capture the key data of each rune (with some fields remaining empty depending on the situation). I'll try to implement this in a {{runic letter}} template. dab (𒁳) 09:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a try, but I think it will probably be quicker to do the 30 or so tables manually than to come up with the complicated template code required to automatize this... The disadvantag being, of course, that 30 templates will be more tedious to maintain than a single template however complicated. So, I've installed an example "infobox" at Fehu (see Template:Fehu infobox), along the lines I suggested back in February 06, and I'll wait for comments before I go any further with this. dab (𒁳) 10:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few responses to questions raised by Dab at my article moves - some of the articles had names such as "runename (rune)" and "runename rune" so I just standardized them into "runename (rune)". For others, I just asterisked their commonly known Elder Futhark variant and moved on (though I could have potentially have chosen other options). Since this is standard practice and ought to be done whenever the names are written to show that they're unattested reconstructions, I figured it wouldn't be a problem and just went ahead and did it but Dab has given me some resistance about it. Anyway, outside of my asterisks-in-title proposal, here's a few points:

Standardization. I think it's possible to work out a sort of standardized format of these articles and that it would be the best option for them. For example, many of the introductions don't require much variance in their development history from one another. Most of the articles can have a standardized body reflecting the development of the rune. Of course, runes such as *perþ- will require extra explanation as to why there's so much confusion surrounding them.
References. These articles are badly in need of references and need badly need pruning. I've done this over the last few years but haven't focused heavily on bringing these articles up to standard in some time - having a system in place would be helpful. Recently, I've been heavily editing and attempting to bring this article, the Runic alphabet article, up to snuff and will continue to do so.
I think the box would be helpful, though the "position" might need some clarification if it's to be used. For example, "futhark and futhorc position" would be more helpful - most people will have no idea what you mean.:bloodofox: (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

0. "runename (rune)" -- a bad idea. I've had this discussion on Talk:Ogham (in an Ogham context, obviously). The idea is based on a misunderstanding of WP:DAB.

1. standardisation is a good thing as long as it doesn't become an end unto itself (ask User:Reddi [21]). The case at Ansuz (rune) (lots of evolution) will necessarily be much more involved than at Fehu (no evolution whatsoever).

2. references are welcome of course, although the present articles can easily be summarily referenced to a standard introduction such as Düwel (2001). I don't know about "pruning". But I appreciate your attack of the Rune poems content that I agree has been in disarray for some time now (still, I object to the "mess". I didn't bother to do this prettily, but I submit it is better to have the basic information than nothing at all. As it stands, we've had the basic information on wiki since late 2004, which was certainly preferable to waiting until 2008 for somebody to do this "properly".)

3. -- granted, you are welcome to fiddle with it. I am trying to keep the table as concise but informative as possible.

I am not trying to keep you from improving the articles, boo. Straightforward cleanup work such as Skadinaujo's is certainly welcome. This is different from questions of actual scholarly content, notation, reconstruction etc., which are very easy to get wrong.

dab (𒁳) 13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "runename (rune)" setup, it wasn't my idea, I was standardizing them when moving them. Regarding references, these articles shouldn't have references as some sort of bonus - they need to be entirely referenced and lock-solidly or they can simply be removed by anyone around and, in many cases, should be. It's good that we have a framework to work with, I suppose, but without references it can be worse than nothing. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. I never objected to your adding references. But when information is completely undisputed and is confirmed in any primer on the subject, referencing can be looser than in cases of arcane or disputed topics. It seems you are not always sure which case applies, as showcased e.g. here. This is an example of what we certainly do not want. You show similar lack of judgement here where you tag {{fact}} to a verbatim quote of a statement from a source that was explicitly stated. You just seemed to think it necessary that each and every sentence in a paragraph must have a footnote. I'll be the first to admit that you have learned much about Germanic topics since you first came here in December 2005, and you may be a living proof that Wikipedia can function as "the university that anyone can edit" for those willing to participate, but you still show some erratic behaviour when it comes to distinguishing exceptional claims from mere standard handbook stuff.

anyway, I created a Category:Rune infoboxes and intend to fill it with these infobox templates over the next days. You are most welcome to help. dab (𒁳) 07:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're a funny guy, Dab. First of all, I didn't put any of those references there on the Óðr page in the edit you show - I simply restored it after you mass removed it in the wake of a better write up. You removed them all again and so it's since been pulled by myself in hopes of a better write up. If anyone here has a problem understanding that material must be referenced, I'm afraid it's you (as these runic articles attest). Secondly, regarding the McNallen quote (where I moved the reference to directly attribute the quote) if I tagged it originally, I'm not sure why. Still, I think anyone who goes through my edit history can well see I'm very familiar and very solid with my sources - unlike yourself.

In fact, with the Óðr article, I'm responsible for almost all of what is there and solidly referenced at the moment. My contributions there are completely in line with WP:GA standards, something I strive for in all of my edits.

Look, Dab, I know you're still angry with me about my involvement in your Arbcom (that didn't go so well for you) but you really ought to get over it and show some civility - which is policy, by the way. For example, there's no need to make claims about my knowledge of Germanic paganism in comparison to your own in some petty attempt at belittlement, and this business about "the University that anyone can edit" - How absolutely absurd. Save me the personal attacks. Comments like these are absolutely not necessary: you know nothing about me outside of my edit history, which you seem very fond of pulling "examples" out of that are, at times, over two years old. How is that necessary or constructive? :bloodofox: (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not wasted a thought on that case in recent weeks. This wasn't your fault. I am perfectly civil, and I have no idea why you are linking to the WP:CIVIL page for my benefit. Any particular passage you'd like to point out? I am commenting on the quality of your edits. You have a long history of well-meaning but uninformed editing. I am not referring to the instances of your ideological pov pushing, they have nothing to do with this. Ok, so you tried to hitch a ride on a completely unrelated arbcom case in an attempt to shoot me down. To the extent that this does reveal something of your personality -- I am happy to ignore that in the interest of keeping this completely non-personal: I really don't care who you are or what you believe in, I am commenting on the quality of your edits. I am prepared to admit that the quality of your edits has generally improved, but I must say that you still tend to create a cost for others with your ill-advised "cleanup" campaigns. No problem, there are many editors who do much worse. If you cannot accept partial praise, forget I tried to give you partial praise. As for "adding references", why haven't you done that for the rune article instead of wasting your breath about it? Just slap Düwel on each article for a start. I agree this would be an improvement. It is really beyond me why you indulge in second-guessing my "understanding" of WP:CITE instead of just going in there and adding the bleeding references. dab (𒁳) 12:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that was praise, I'd hate to see your criticism! Further, if that "cost for others" is to get them to reference their contributions, that is policy. I don't believe there was any reason for me not to be involved in your Arbcom - it was open to anyone and I felt it was necessary. Regarding referencing, I'll start by referencing the names and meanings of the individual Elder Futhark runes when I get a chance - I generally feel responding to people is more pressing. Also, I'm curious about this "ideological POV pushing" - can you be more specific? :bloodofox: (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whatever. No, I will not discuss our past ideological exchanges on this page. Yes, you are welcome to cleaning up the "mess" at rune poem and to "referencing the names and meanings of the individual Elder Futhark runes" (as long as this doesn't result articles littered with footnotes Óðr-style. dab (𒁳) 13:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was moved to the runic studies talk page on 22 May 2008.

Standard Outline

The discussion was moved to the runic studies talk page on 21 May 2008.

Though this topic is something I wanted to tackle as part of a coordinated Ancient Germanic studies project, it seems that important decisions are being made now. I would like to come back to a point raised earlier: a 'standardized' outline. Do either of you have any concrete ideas here? I was thinking something like the following:

Lead

(ToC)

Etymology

History (incl. Developmental theories, e.g. Mees (Celtic), Taylor (Greek), Vennemann (Phoenician), etc.; and developmentally antecedent/subsequent runes)

Usage

Phonetic value

Rune Poems

Pop Culture (?)

Criticism is expected - but so are concrete alternative proposals. Ideas? —Aryaman (Enlist!) 11:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds perfectly acceptable to me. This is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. I guess the question is how exactly should we propose the lead? I think they can be largely standardized, maybe something like this for most of them:

*Runename is the reconstructed Proto-Germanic name for the (letter value)-rune in the Elder Futhark meaning "meaning, meaning, meaning".(ref) This reconstruction is based off of the attested (poem rune), (poem rune), (poem rune), and is related to (gothic letter name).

Of course, considering certain runes have a more problematic reconstruction than others, we ought to figure in what to be written in this circumstance for the lead. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very constructive contribution, Varoon. Standardization will massively improve the overall standard of the separate rune articles, and we won't get deficient and untidy articles like for example the Gyfu page. Since the rune poems are essential to the understanding of the meaning of the rune names, I think it would be more natural to move the "Rune Poems" section further up, by making it a sub-section of "Etymology" (assuming the etymologic section will deal with the meaning of the name, correct me if I'm wrong). I realize the rune poem tables I have made the last couple of days may lead to some aesthetic flaws due to the space they take, but so far this solution for the rune poems is better than how it was earlier, in my opinion. The last section called "Pop culture" should perhaps have a more neutral name like "Modern usage", and an "Ancient usage" section can be added as a counterpart, as in the current Tiwaz rune article. The "Phonetic value" section is superfluous if we are going to keep the rune infoboxes Dab has been adding lately. So to sum it up, here's the slightly altered version that I have in mind:

Lead (with the rune infobox)

(ToC)

Etymology

Rune Poems

History (incl. Developmental theories, e.g. Mees (Celtic), Taylor (Greek), Vennemann (Phoenician), etc.; and developmentally antecedent/subsequent runes)

Usage

Ancient usage (if there is anything noteworthy)

Modern usage (same as above)

Bloodofox' lead section suggestion sounds good to me. --Skadinaujo (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for a standard outline for the rune article names (discussed above), I think the reconstructed Proto-Germanic name without any special characters or asterixes is fitting. Adding "rune" (no parentheses) after the Proto-Germanic name can also ward off any disambiguation problems, and clears up confusion - most people know the runes by other names, most likely the Younger Futhark ones. Where there are several reconstructions (as with *Laguz/Laukaz), the most plausible and commonly accepted term is a natural choice (*Laguz in this case), but when there are two equally accepted conflicting names (as with *Ūruz/Ûram), what is the solution here? It would be wise to have a standard template, to prevent unpleasant situations ([22] - [23]). When it comes to implementing these standardizations, I suppose we'll handle that under controlled circumstances as a part of the Ancient Germanic studies project. --Skadinaujo (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Naming conventions: This is inherently tricky territory, as equally qualified experts are frequently at variance with one another and often give little to no reasoning behind their reconstructions. Case in point: Düwel (2001) has *Laguz, Haarmann (1998) has *Laukaz. Neither give good reasons for their choice, and I don't think we are going to find any sources that can decide the matter conclusively (even Düwel is undecided on a few, giving both *Īsaz/Īsan, *Haglaz/Haglan and *Ōþalan/Ōþilan. I suggest that we gather our sources and then simply decide upon one or the other convention based upon frequency of occurrence and consistency and then apply that standard universally. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 14:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I support your suggestion. --Skadinaujo (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against artificial standardization of article names. WP:NAME tells us to pick the most common name for the topic. For a well-attested rune like the g rune, this may well be gyfu, while for an obscure rune like p, this may indeed be "p rune". Runes that survive both in Anglo-Saxon and Younger Futhark rows, the runes will be known by at least two names, depending on context (strictly speaking, an Anglo-Saxon f rune is not the "same" letter as a YF f rune, but not even Unicode makes this distinction). WP:UCS on a case by case basis will be needed there. dab (𒁳) 18:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was moved to the runic studies talk page on 21 May 2008.

Image copyright problem with Image:Bluetooth.svg

The image Image:Bluetooth.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to alfatruin.msk.ru

I deleted this following the guidance at WP:EL and [24] which says:

Webpages in English are highly preferred. Linking to non-English pages may still be useful for readers in the following cases:

when the website is the subject of the article
when linking to pages with maps, diagrams, photos, tables (explain the key terms with the link, so that people who do not know the language can interpret them)
when the webpage contains key or authoritative information found on no English-language site and is used as a citation (or when translations on English-language sites are not authoritative).

Particularly we already have slightly more links than we should have, I'd like to know the rationale for having this one. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't approve of deleting links just because there isn't enough English on them, particularly when they are related to linguistics. Having said that, I'm not fighting for this, though I think content on the link in question was interesting. -- Evertype·✆ 08:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't about the Russian bits at all. The question is, should we link to Jon Olafsson of Grunnavik's MS. Runologia. This seems to be a notable early (18th century) work on runology. As long as we keep a separate runology article discussing the history of research, this manuscript should probably be discussed there. Better yet, we need an English equivalent of the is:Jón Grunnvíkingur article. Just linking to an 18th century treatise on runology without comment isn't very helpul. --dab (𒁳) 08:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note we have a redlink to Jón Ólafsson (runologist) at Jón Ólafsson. This is the article we should develop, and the alfatruin.msk.ru link would properly be placed there. --dab (𒁳) 09:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]