Talk:Scylding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This has been moved from Shieldings to Scylding for the following reasons:

1. Wikipedia standards urge a singular form of a national or group name for an article title.
2. The forms "Shielding" or "Shieldings", though the sensible modern English counterparts, are in practice very rarely used in English except for occasional glosses explaining the forms Scylding/Scyldingas or Skjöldung/Skjöldungar.

Google hits returned for searches:

Search Pattern                                        All languages   English only
Scylding OR Scyldingas OR Scyldings                          12,600         12,200
Skjoldung OR Skjoldungar OR Skjoldunger                         523            316
Skjöldung OR Skjöldungar OR Skjöldunger or Skjöldungs           395             41

This obviously reflects translations and discussions of Beowulf, perhaps inordinately so. Because the actual Scyldings/Skjöldungs were Danish, I would myself prefer the form of the entry to be Skjöldung, but bow to actual usage. But within articles the forms Skjöldung and Skjöldungs should probably be used when speaking of Norse and Danish sources, usually appearing on first use as something linke "Skjöldung (Scylding)" providing both the link and the alternate form.

Jallan 23:13, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I'll try to tidy up.--Wiglaf 07:51, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Shield carriers

Claus Deleuran speculates in Illustrated History of Denmark for the People that King Scyld was made up to fit the name Scylding because -ing names often indicated descendants, whereas scyldings may well have meant shield carriers.

There is a tendency among historians to spill a lot of ink on claiming that legendary people never existed. Think about it, would it be reasonable to call a clan the "shield carriers" in a time when most people used shieds? Moreover, I don't know of any case when the the head of the noun (X-ing) did not stand for an ancestor.--Wiglaf 19:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Deleuran a historian per se, he was more of an interested amateur. Anyway I am pretty sure there aren't any actual sources for a King Scyld aside from Beowulf. See for instance the quotation in said article. (Oh and I seem to have forgotten to sign the previous note) Mikkel 19:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

King Skjöld is mentioned in Scandinavian sources, as well.--Wiglaf 19:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't most of these use the Beowulf as a source anyway? The eddas and Saxo are ~200 years younger than it.Mikkel 19:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I consider that highly unlikely. I have written most articles relating to Beowulf and the Norse sagas, and they are too different for that. For instance, if the Norse sources had borrowed from Beowulf, Eadgils would have been called Auðgils (and not Adils), he would have fought his uncle instead of a Norwegian king, and he would have done so with Geatish forces and not with Danish. IMHO, everything points to a common tradition separated by hundreds of years in different parts of Northern Europe, and that is the most common opinion, in my experience.--Wiglaf 19:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)