Talk:Rök Runestone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi Wiglaf/Haukurth (I'm sure it'll be one of you two who spots this). Any chance of some references for this excellent article? In particular, I'd be interested to know where the transliterations and translation come from. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I took the transliterations and the translations from the Joint Nordic database for runic inscriptions.--Wiglaf 09:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Just a question about an otherwise great article: what is the purpose of including the West Norse transcription, that is "standardized" Icelandic from half a millennium after the stone was carved?--Kallerdis 18:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a great article. I'd like to see added

  • mukmini is the most disputed/pondered word of the inscription. Its meaning - or even its reading - is not agreed upon, and yet it undoubtedly carries the whole formula of the text.
  • the gap in "memories" - "memory" # 3-11 are... missing, absent. Some have speculated that this could indicate more stones have been present, forming a spectacular monument. Pure speculation, but important part of the lore surrounding the stone. (IIRC, and I'll have to look it up, the gap bridges the inscription on the two sides, making a reading from one stone to another possible.)

There are also dozens of references to add, particularly in Swedish - should we? Just suggesting... // OlofE¨

Add in anything you can find. I'll add my references... Nixdorf 20:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Some info about the process of the translation/decryption of the text would be appericiated. I remember visiting this runestone with school when I was a kid 10-15 years ago. At that time the runes on the top of the stone was still unknown, they are not normal nordic runes but some sort of code. I did hear they have now been decrypted, but would like to see some details about this part aswell. -- 13:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a simple system - the number of scratches on the staves indicate the ætt of the rune intended and its index within the ætt. But I think this was all figured out long ago so you may have got incorrect information.
But, yes, it would be nice to have details on this in the article. Haukur 13:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

About the soundbite of the Theoderik Strophe: the speaker certainly has good diction and manages a suitably menacing sound, but: he realizes the R-rune as a kind of z- or "rz"-sound. I agree with what today seems to be the mainstream within runology and Germanistics that the R-rune remained Proto-Germanic *-z during Proto-Norse, but in later Old Norse we undoubtedly encounter it as an r-sound. Isn't it reasonable to assume r-sound throughout the Old Norse period and take the transition as happening some time during the 7th or 8th century? David ekstrand 14:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true that the phoneme /z/ (from Proto-Germanic /z/, however exactly it was pronounced at any given period) had merged with /r/ (from Proto-Germanic /r/) in western Scandinavia by the time of the earliest Old Norse manuscripts. But runic inscriptions show that the distinction was alive and well earlier in the Viking Age. The merge happened later in the east. It can be dated by inscriptions where a distinction is no longer kept between the runes for /z/ and /r/. Since the two symbols aren't confused in the Rök stone inscription, we can assume that /z/ and /r/ still existed as distinct phonemes in the spoken language at this point. --Dependent Variable.
Thank you both! Yes, /z/ and /r/ are distinct in Swedish well into the 11th century, if memory serves. I was trying for the "Dvořák sound". The biggest problem for me is distinguishing between short and long vowels and short and long consonants at the same time. A Finnish speaker could probably do this better. Haukur 12:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Transcription sources[edit]

On June 14, 2005, user:Wiglaf added transcriptions of the text. Later that year, Wigalf left Wikipedia for ever. Do we need a source for this transcription? Is the translation from "aft" to "eptir" and from "sunu" to "son" entirely obvious and uncontroversial? Or is this "original research"? --LA2 (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we definitely need a source for every single transcription. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The transcription you have linked to is identical to that in Rundata. However, the present version is different and looks like the Danish transcription of Old East Norse with w instead of v, which represent the same sound but in a different transcription tradition.--Berig (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Captions are flipped[edit]

I belive the captions for the pictures are mixed up. The second image shows the front of the stone; the one in the info-box has the reverse side with the curious cross-shaped cipher runes at the top which are the final words of the text. Anders Ljung (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Original Church Dating[edit]

I have been trying to find out more info on the original church in which the stone was found. According to an edit by BIL, it was built in the 12th century, but I haven't found anything to confirm that. Do we know for sure how old the church was? Thevolsungsaga (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Swedish article sv:Röks kyrka says the stone was part of a magazine (a tithe barn) next to the old church. When the old church was torn down in 1843 and the current one built 1843-1845, the stone was built into its wall. The article doesn't mention any dating of the magazine. The area around lake Tåkern is full of churches built in the 12th century, which have been dated by dendrochronology of their roof beams. --LA2 (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)