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


I'm having trouble comprehending the etymological section of this article. There seems to be some disagreement going on about the etymological connections. In the current edit, the Ingaevones are considered to be connected to Yngvi, and then to the Angles.

In a previous version of this document I found this apparently opposite theory, however:

The name Yngvi cannot be etymologically connected to either Angles or Angvin (this last from Latin Andegavinus, an inhabitant of Andegavia, modern Anjou). Of course Angles, along with Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians and those who became the Dutch are classified linguistically as Ingaevonic.

I'm not sure I understand this.

In an even earlier version it says this:

Also considered likely is a connection to the Ingaevones mentioned by Tacitus as one of the three primitive Germanic tribes descended from Mannus (the first man) son of Tuisto, being the peoples closest to the sea. In Nennius we find Mannus corrupted to Alanus and Ingio/Inguio ? his son to Neugio. Here the three sons of Neugio are Vandalus (ancestor of the Vandals, Saxo (father of the Saxons) and Boganus (ancestor of the Bogari).

But much of this previous version seems to have disappeared.

It appears a number of competing theories are in play here. Can someone summarize them both in the article? Martijn faassen 23:05, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Martijn, just because somebody can't see the forest for the trees, doesn't mean you should join them. They obviously weren't corroborating anything between the words Angles of the Ingvaeones and Yngvi into anything sensible, but postulating junk etymology. How long will it take before you use your own mind and see for yourself whether something makes sense or not? That "corrupting" of names is complete rubbish! that is no way to present an etymology!!! Mannus corrupted to Ingio? Utter tripe! All linguists know that is impossible! The author has no etymology experience, and is assuming relationships between the names on an etymo;ogical level when it is only perhaps broadly cultural agreements between them. Man and ing are two words in Germanic "mann-ing", "manning". They cannot be the same!!! Kenneth Alansson 02:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I got confused reading the current version, and I would prefer a clearer description of each theory involved. No matter if one theory is wrong, as long as it is a current theory with some acceptance by a number of experts in the field I'd like to see it in the article. This way I can draw my own conclusions, or conclude that we just don't know yet.
Please don't remove a theory that conflicts with the one you want to add. Just add the theory you want to add, NPOV the previous one if necessary, and perhaps add a NPOV discussion of the differences. If it turns out the original theory was really one that is actually unsupported, it can always be removed later when a consensus has been reached. Martijn faassen 12:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to include the older, outdated/inaccurate material in a presentation here. The Talk page would allow anybody to readily see it for debate to a perhaps restoration in the article. A lot of that older theoretical stuff was written by Latin culturists who had little knowledge of what they were talking about, nonetheless, they wrote it anyways, hoping to fool other Romans into believing they knew all about it. This is attested to in every contemporary source regarding the "Barbarian" and "Viking" peoples of "Germania". Martijn, why suffer an article to have inaccurate beliefs postulated several centuries ago simply because it was an early study? That's like keeping parts of a rough draft of notes based upon hearsay to include in an essay. How will Wikipedia benefit? Do we always need to include ignorant comments by that elitest group of intellectuals, which haven't changed to reflect newer or more indepth info for the millenia it has been circulated? - - :I can understand a comment reviewing their beliefs into the nature of the tribes, but putting it up as the bulk of the article or it's main focus cheapens the quality of study. My statements here mirror your comments in agreement, and have provided the sense you refer to justify. It is already general consensus by current authors of a wide range that those descriptions are obsolete, however, not all have agreed, as some simply don't research as well as the others and continue to spew the same unsupported nonsense but don't comment on the matter either, so it is an analytical comment to deem them ignorant of the matter. I tend to trust sources that aren't simply made for youths and children's TV specials. Besides, the person tried to revert my contributions of which he/she was unaware my intent. I stated that pronouncing Ingvaeones is similar to pronouncing Angevins but he/she flipped out on me because he/she assumed I equated the two. Also, the Dutch aren't Ingvaeones, but they were Batavians, a different group linguistically and occultically. The Low German tongue(plattdeutsch) is more Ingvaeonic(Anglo-Friesian) as it is a Low German tongue akin to Saxon, not partaking in the last sound shift undertaken by High German, etc. Middle German is where Dutch derives from. Kenneth Alansson 13:51, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dutch is often classed as part of the Ingvaeonic group of languages by some as so appears in the Wikipedia entry Ingvaeones, not by my doing. It is also sometimes not so classed. Linguists differ and I don't feel I can judge in that matter.

This is part of the reaons I've moved all the Ing and Ingvaeonic material to the Ingvaeones entry. I think this helps clear some of the confusion Martijn mentioned. The different information about Yngvi the ancestor of the Ynglings in different sources is bad enough without putting information about the supposed ancestor of the Ingvaeones in the same article, even though they probably originally derive from the same mythical figure.

As to Angevins, what point to mention that Ingvaeones is pronounced like Angevins when it probably wasn't especially, at least not any more than the spellings indicate? What purpose does such a note serve when the names are unrelated?

In any case, Angles are not "normally" identified with Ynglings or Ingvaeones per se. Angles are just one of the peoples classified as Ingvaeones, and not especially so classified, not so classified any more than are Jutes or Frisians or Saxons.

And I never said Mannus was corrupted into Neugio. Nennius states (

The first man that dwelt in Europe was Alanus, with his three sons, Hisicion, Armenon, and Neugio.

This is obviously a tradition corrupted from Tacitus or parallel to it. Tacitus wrote:

In their old ballads (which amongst them are the only sort of registers and history) they celebrate Tuisto, a God sprung from the earth, and Mannus his son, as the fathers and founders of the nation. To Mannus they assign three sons, after whose names so many people are called; the Ingaevones, dwelling next the ocean; the Herminones, in the middle country; and all the rest, Istaevones.

The obvious connection has long been known and recognized. See Jacob Grimm on the legendary Istaevonic or, as he prefers, Iscaevonic ancestor at :

But what seem irrefragable proofs are the Escio and Hisicion (18) of Nennius, in a tradition of the Mid. Ages not adopted from Tacitus, and the Isiocon (19) in a Gaelic poem of the 11th century (see Suppl.).

User:jallan 19:00, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Separate the god-king from the rune, please![edit]

The god/king Yngvi and the rune Ingwaz deserve separate articles, for the sake of clarity and consistency: Two other runes (Ansuz and Tiwaz) are also named after deities (the Æsir and Tyr respectively). In spite of that, the "deity" articles aren't merged with the "rune" articles--they discuss the rune briefly, then offer a link to the other page. The Ingwaz-rune should get similar treatment, in my opinion. -- ISNorden 20:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yngvi in popular culture[edit]

Not a single reference to the phrase "Yngvi is a louse!" For shame. --Syd Henderson 23:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Because there's no reliable source. —Tamfang (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The rune[edit]

There's something I don't understand about the Ingwaz rune: why did they use a rune for that IPA ŋ sound? Wikipedia says that in both Old Norse and Old English, that sound was only a version of the n sound used before k and g, and it wasn't distinguised from n... so why would they have a rune for it? (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)