Talk:Rök Runestone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. --213.100.90.171 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)