|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Still a Stub?
Are people of the opinion that the article in its current state is still a "stub"? If so, could someone please explain what would be necessary to bring it up to 'article' status? If not, could someone remove the class tag? Varoon Arya 16:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed the stub notice. It is too long now to be a stub.--Berig 17:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to replace the rune-images with an actual wiki-friendly runic font. Could someone add these or point me in the right direction? Varoon Arya 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Found out how to do this myself...Aryaman (☼) 19:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd prefer if the old rune-images were kept. Most computers don't have the runic font installed, and so only specialist, or people with a special interest, will be able to see the runes.--Berig (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Meanwhile - for new browsers (not Safari, Apple has stopped the development of his browser) - have extended unicodes up to 77 777, which can be written as &#?????;. Most are chinese letters, but there also are cunelform and hyroglyphs (?) and many more alphabets. So someone who knows runic letters, futhark, should try. Its on the webpage earningcharts.net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The Buckle and Old High German
The inscription on the buckle has been characterized as the first instance of the Old High German consonant shift (see under Alamanni). Would anyone care to elucidate that in this article, as it seems a fairly important development of historical linguistics? Thanks.Dave 11:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have plans to add an image as well as some sourced information to the article relating to the debate surrounding the actual content of the inscription. Varoon Arya 11:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"Scribal error"-note #1
My first encounters with scribal errors was in cuneiform, (Amarna letters, etc) when I finally figured out that when the footnotes constantly referred to glossing errors, I realized that I was being duped.
To begin with: A Scribe, does not make, even one error. That is their(his or her) job. Obviously, mistakes are made...(retyping a word, erasing, and re-imprinting). Anyway this is my first note on this phrase scribal error. I suspect, the mostly intentional changes by a scribe, are yet to be figured out. (if 1 of 4 interpreters goes to use the scribal error phrase-(in this article),...I don't know how that could easily compare. (it would have to be some insightful interpretation)(with such a short inscription, I would think a "scribal error" would have to be a gross, obvious–to–anyone, error)). I would bet.....that even 25 per cent being actual, or true scribal errors, might be high(In doing this scribe category stuff, I have seen the phrase 100 to 300 times). Anyhow, in all the 30-to 40 Amarna letters, or photos of parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh, I did not see any "scribal errors", (or at least none I was smart enuff to understand). The extremely complex letters, are so complex with words, and the grammar sequences, (that interpretations are only for extreme students of the toughest letters). (comments from the HotArizonaUsa SonoranDesert ..)....(PS, I did Hannathon recently-(a photo-(side 2) found on the Web-www), and the second side of this complex letter, I found Hi Na Tu Na(or whatever it came to), but it had been two years since doing the letters, and few other words on that side came forward-(side 2 story is complex)(scribes impress-write on the bottom and then start-"go to" side two(like a clean slate-and the end of the letter is in front of them, literally-that's why they go to a second tablet on occasions). (the line with the name had about 11-12 characters ending with the last 4 or 5 spelling the towns name, and ending the line. (I think it was listed in the "List of Biblical names", etc.(checked-that's the link)))Mmcannis (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
2nd PostScript/PS: I vote number 3 of 4:
——"Aigil and Ailrun fought at the Ilz river", but maybe the Ilz is not just a 'river', and can mean/imply a bunch of other things. ......Mmcannis (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Adding to my talk Comments("scribal error")Mmcannis (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)—
A friend of myne also found/chose the 3rd translation-(which is an irrelevant fact)(my comments on #3 after I list the 4 translations-(highlighted-(Bolded)-(now the edits reversed, (of course). Here are the 4 Translations-Bolded:
1— "Aigil and Ailrun scolded Angiltah"
2— “Aigil and Ailrun damned the stags (i.e. the stag masquerades)”
3— "Aigil and Ailrun fought at the Ilz river"
4— "Aigil and Ailrun vigorously fought/condemned all"
- As for Translation 3, could two things be possible: First, another verb/(verbs) to replace(enhance) "fought", and second, could another "noun" for "Ilz River" be implied, or a complete phrase. (I have no clue what the phrase by itself implies-(would imply)). If it is: As Simple as the Battle at The River, then maybe that is what it is....)xxx xxxx(I See that Translation 4 satisfies my request of the second Item("fought" and "Ilz River"), the Noun)(So.. my vote, now is for #3, and #4(conditioned))(#2 also sounds pretty good, next) (from the SonoranDesert, ArizonaUSa).... Mmcannis (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)