Talk:Jēran

Title
of all arguable titles, *Jēra- strikes me as a spectacularly bad choice. So the name may have been either jeram or jeraz. And instead of choosing one, we are linking to a technical linguistic form with asterisk and hyphen? Why not *j(ē₂/æ)ra-(m/z) while we're at it? --dab (𒁳) 14:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably vecause *Jēra- is what is standard and it's solidly referenced as exactly that. I think you're underestimating our audience - it's hardly an issue if the introduction gives a nice, solid explanation without abbreviations and with proper links. Subsequently, I'll be working with the Elder Futhark articles to bring up their quality from the extremely confusing and largely completely unreferenced mess that they are now. bloodofox: (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * hah, that's the first time someone thought I am "underestimating our audience". I am doing no such thing. I am merely saying, linguistic details belong in the article, not the title. Bloodofox, your unilateral changes are not welcome. If you have plans for the "mess" that are the Futhark articles, I will be grateful if you seek consensus for them. I remind you that your history of unilateral "cleanup" of runic topics isn't all glorious. Yes, the rune articles could do with improvement. No, they are not a "mess". It is much that we have a standalone article on each rune already (I dare you to find a general encyclopedia which has that). Information is generally correct and useful. Formatting could be improved. Tell you what, why don't you focus on layout, navigation templates and general prettification for now. --dab (𒁳) 08:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that these edits required consensus. However, if they meet with resistance I am willing to work with it. Dab, I don't think the point is what "other encyclopedias" have and what we don't have - it has no bearing on the quality we ought to have here. If it's not referenced, it needs to be pulled and most of these articles are a big, unreferenced mess. As for the link, that was poor move on my part two years ago, sure, but what does that have to do with these edits? Conversation continues at talk:Runic alphabet. bloodofox: (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect Jeraz is simply ungrammatical. That would be a masculine ending and would often alternatively be transliterated with 'JeraR' which I have never seen. For instance Hagalaz is often written HagalaR, Thurisaz ThurisaR an so forth for other runestaves (given that they are masculine). I think Jera is not masculine! Take a look at the German Wikipedia entry - there's no reference to Jeraz or JeraR there - just Jeran as an alternative! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.76.97 (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverts
Dab, the problem here is that you're reverting a referenced meaning which your "superior" version lacks. I am aware of what a stem is, thanks. However, since these articles will get an overhaul soon enough I'll leave your unreferenced version in the mean time. bloodofox: (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jēran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060728220636/http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/faculties/arts/1997/j.h.looijenga/ to http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/faculties/arts/1997/j.h.looijenga

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The shape of Ger
This page has been pretty misleading, especially the chart at the top. Ger normally looked like ᛡ in Futhorc, but there was a less common variant which looked like ᛄ. One wouldn't know this by looking at the chart: the chart makes it seem like ᛄ is the standard shape of Ger, and the chart makes it seem like ᛡ is a rune called "Ior". In truth, Ior would probably be best described as a pseudo-rune, as it's only attested in manuscript tradition (which is notorious for its runic errors). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blodcyning (talk • contribs) 22:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)