Talk:Runes/Archive 2

Irrelevant ? Picture source, doctored photo
[[Image:Björketorpsstenen runor.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Closeup of the runes on the [[Björketorp Runestone]] :There is something wrong with this picture. Notice Lichen plants which grows under the insctiption :)

Realy irrelevant? Nasz 18:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First, I can see nothing wrong with the picture - I guess you are aware that stones like the one in the picture are regularly cleaned and that the red paint is not original (although it is generally assumed that the runes on Nordic runestones were initially painted in a red-ochre color) but a modern addition - so it is entirely possilbe for some lichen to apparently grow "behind" a rune because the rune has been recently cleaned and painted. And second, a comment like "There's something wrong with this" is always irrelevant to an article - comments and sidenotes have to stay out of articles, that's what the talk page is for. -- Ferkelparade &pi; 19:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect fixed
The SIG redirect was going to the goddess rather than the rune

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ASH1977LAW (talk • contribs) 11:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert linkspam?
It doesn't look like spam to me. I glanced through the article - full of typos, but English is not the author's native language. Here's the link: Someone check this out please? Cbdorsett 09:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mystery Of The Futhark Alphabet -new edition-
 * Ahh, the connection between the Germanic Futhark runes and the Turkish Orkhon runes is extremely speculative. We shouldn't link to this fringe theory as a given fact. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Correspondence table
I created a Runic table at User:Wakuran/Runic_Table with some of the more striking correspondences between the Elder Futhark and the Greek and Latin alphabets. I wonder if it could be useful, or if it's too unwieldy for the article. Probably some of the more probable alternate variants of Etruscan, Western Greek and Old Italic alphabets should be added, as well, if someone has images for these letter variants. Please give comments. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Violation of the rule to let the sources speak
I am very disturbed by this unsourced statements concercing the West Germanic hypothesis:

"However, it should be noted that the differences between Proto-Norse and other Germanic dialects were still minute and that the classification is mostly based on location rather than forms. References to unknown tribes are received with doubt."

Here the author takes the liberty to evaluate a scholarly investigation without resorting to a valid reference. According to his personal views?
 * It should be noted: does the writer, a specialist, fail to notice something by himself? If so, I would like to hear so from another scholar (sourced).
 * The difference between Proto-Norse and other Germanic dialects were still minute. We are talking here about the period 200-500AD, when the first runes appeared. F.i. Lucien Musset (p12) claims that by the fifth century the Germanic languages were already sufficiently different to render communication between the various people impossible. Since few Germanic survived from before 500AD, I think such a claim as if the differences between complete different branches were still "minute" at most a few centuries earlier is hard to believe without reference.
 * the classification is mostly based on location rather than forms: This statement is a known commonplace against the classical classification system, considered obsolete by many modern specialists. This argument is used to refer to the notion (Schwarz) that North Germanic and East Germanic are more closely related (Gotho-Scandinavian) and are in fact the opposite pole to Continental Germanic (this is West Germanic).
 * References to unknown tribes are received with doubt : By whom?

The editor fails to review the facts within the new context created to this West Germanic hypothesis by itself. My footnote concerning the most obvious consequence to this West Germanic hypothesis - that the Proto-Norse identity of the first runes would have to be reconsidered before making such a statement since this might even invalidate all preliminary conclusions about language differences - was silently deleted by the author. Indeed, something should be noted before trying to invalidate a theory using loose arguments.

All arguments are put forward to cast doubts on a certain theory. This is not the task of Wikipedia. Although I normally value logic, however, I consider the current arguments shaky, so I think this phrase should be properly sourced or deleted at all. Like this I would easily mistake the phrase for OR and POV. Rokus01 00:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem here is your removal of this text:
 * However, it should be noted that the differences between Proto-Norse and other Germanic dialects were still minute and that the classification is mostly based on location rather than forms.
 * I don't remember who wrote that or when, but I fail to see what kind of problem you have here since the Vimose inscriptions are considered to be Proto-Norse with a few scholars poiting out that they may be west Germanic. The text you removed only states that the differences between West and North Germanic were so small at the time that the categorization of runic inscriptions is based on location. Moreover, I hope you are aware of the fact that West and North Germanic were still part of a linguistic continuum in the area which makes some scholars subsume both as Northwest Germanic (see article for references) a situation which lasted until c. 500 AD. Since you have not given a valid reason for deleting the section, I will take the liberty of reinserting it.--Berig 19:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please display your knowledge of Begging the question in assuming an argument in favour of "differences between Proto-Norse and other Germanic dialects were still minute", with all we know about Proto-Norse being runes theorized here to be West Germanic. Since this kind of phoney counter arguments against such a West Germanic hypothsis are not sourced, I am justified in suspecting OR. The Northwest Germanic theory only has significance within the context of this runes whose "scantiness .... makes it impossible to be sure of the relationship of this language to Germanic and its daughter languages. It is traditionally known as Scandinavian but shows few if any distinctively North Germanic features and MAY reflect a stage, sometimes called Northwest Germanic" (Britannica, 22:650). However, the generally accepted archeological view is explained in Britannica 22:642. 750BC: a relatively uniform Germanic spoken from the Netherlands to the Vistula and southern Scandinavia (by the way, where is Jastorf? never mind); 250BC five general groups are distinguishable, including North Germanic, North Sea Germanic, Rhine Weser Germanic, Elbe Germanic and East Germanic. You see? No Northwestern Germanic mentioned in this list. Indeed, North Germanic + Northsea Germanic + Rhine-Weser Germanic shared a sound change, but the same has been argued to apply to Northsea Germanic and a later stage of (Roman-?)Keltic (k=>sj in cheese and chateaux): this is not enough to assume small differences - I've even heard of sound changes being triggered by language contacts. A language continuum, I agree, but what would this mean more than to assume non-representative local dialects?

"However, it should be noted that the differences between Proto-Norse and other Germanic dialects were still minute and that the classification is mostly based on location rather than forms. References to unknown tribes are received with doubt."

No, I try but can't make any sense out of this all too obvious an example of OR. I would appreciate you could find a source supporting all of this. Who says the Britannica classification is based on location? And so what, does this support your claim that Germanic languages did not differentiate enough to be distinguisable? Who's theory is this and where it says so? And who received the references to unknown tribes with doubt? I really want to know. Rokus01 23:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Rokus01, the only reason for classifying Negau helmet as "Proto-Germanic" and the Vimose inscriptions as "Proto-Norse" is their locations. You say that you agree that there was a language continuum (A language continuum, I agree) and the discussion where you want to remove the text as OR (sic.) concerns precisely the Northwest Germanic region where you would later find the "divide" between West Germanic and North Germanic, and where by consequence the local idiom would be most indeterminate and hard to pinpoint. So what are you trying to achieve Rokus01? Why don't you just add a tag instead of removing a quite correct statement?--Berig 03:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PS, your speculations about the wide dialectal differences within the Nortwest Germanic region before the arrival of written documentation (runes) are exactly what is targeted by WP:OR. Since this theory of yours is your motivation behind your removals, *you* are in fact to be considered in violation of WP:OR, and not the original contributor.--Berig 03:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Berig, read and notice I address the objections to a theory for being both unsourced and private. I am willing to add a tag ONLY if the existence of sources -able to support a certain statement- is reasonable to assume. I already explained extensively above why here such is not the case. I summarize: In short, the edit is unacceptable "as is". If removal is not an option, I would rather propose the following: "However, it should be noted that differences between Germanic languages still might have been minute. The nomer Proto-Norse would continue to be based on location, without reflecting any (North Germanic) classification based on linguistic forms. References to unknown tribes could increase our knowledge of the Germanic culture, but fail to support new divisions along linguistic lines." Rokus01 22:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Without sourced reference, to say the differences ARE minute is as OR as to say the differences ARE big. If you don't want to mention sources and derive your knowledge from unspecified reasoning your are obliged to say at least MIGHT.
 * No uniform Northwestern linguistic region is generally assumed to have existed after 250 BC. Also, this grouping is not very common or broadly used, having already other and more current groupings. To make others believe otherwise (again, unsourced) is OR and POV pushing. The context of Northwestern Germanic is confined to the disputed runes and nothing else.
 * You can not defend a theory by refering to a tentative North Germanic "Proto-Norse", the knowledge of which is disputed by this very theory.
 * The definition of Proto-Norse "by location instead of linguistic characteristics" reduce your objection to the runes being West-Germanic to utter nonsense. The theory holds the runes to be West Germanic based on linguistic characteristics, not location. Indeed, Proto Norse is just a name and would pass over to the West Germanic branch without shedding any light to North Germanic. The name would be reduced to a misnomer without any sense. Don't abuse a possible misnomer for being an (unsourced) argument against this theory!
 * To my knowledge, nobody ever doubted the existence of unknown tirbes.

Rokus, your basic understanding that sources should be responsibly cited is correct. However, you continue to nitpick in an unconstructive manner. It is far from clear what you are trying to achieve, but it appears that it is ultimately about some private obsession of yours regarding Proto-Germanic and the Netherlands. I still don't quite understand what you want, but it appears you have a bee in your bonnet about some native and ancient specifically West-Germanic culture rooted in your native soil. In other words, boring old national mysticism. Instead of trying to insert whatever it is you prefer to believe, you take to sniping at perfectly mainstream statements, which is alwasy possible since, surprise surprise, nothing in Iron Age linguistics is dead certain or undisputed. It is true that the phrasing "minute" could be altered to something less assertive, but that's really it. A minor matter of more careful phrasing, nothing that needs to be drawn out into a vitriolic dispute. The difference between Germanic dialects of the 2nd century AD certainly was rather minor (give us one major isogloss between Proto-North-Germanic and Proto-West-Germanic!) dab (𒁳) 11:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A fairly recent theory on a West Germanic interpretation is impossible to counter with "perfectly mainstream statements." So how do you reconcile mainstream with nothing being dead certain or disputed? Never mind, I think you did a good thing giving more alternatives and giving more details, since only after some effort I understood the comments were made with some kind of Northwestern Germanic view in mind. However, contrary to what you assert, Northwestern Germanic is not "mainstream", it is just also one of many perspectives and possibilities, and definitely different from the generally accepted genesis of the Germanic languages as exposed in Britannica, that certainly does not assume beforehand a common development of North and West Germanic until the 5th century. Only few scholars would readily agree to posing East Germanic in an opposite pole to North Germanic+West Germanic. Please be careful with this word "mainstream", since it gives undue weight to other opinions that might be just yours. Since you like to make a habit of speculating about my alleged hidden agenda, let me make clear to you that sniping against sneering away valuable contributions of wikipedians and scholars alike in the name of some kind of undefined "mainstream" thing is perfectly legal. Rokus01 14:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation, esp ᛭ "runic cross" usage.
The page Runic alphabet give no clue on how the punctuation marks are used. Can someone cite a hint?

ThanX NevilleDNZ 10:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think they are just used to split a sentence between words (such as the space in many modern alphabets) similar to, and probably inspired by, symbols such as Interpunct. I don't think there's evidence for any difference in usage of the three punctuation marks, and they were probably only used differently depending on the carver's preferred taste. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 12:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wakuran is right. There were either : or x between words, and no punctuation. To confuse the matter some words could be joined into a single word if the first word ended with the same rune as the initial rune of the second word. To give an example okrimulfr could represent ok Grimulfr ("and Grimulf").--Berig 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an Old Norse, example, btw, where many runes had disappeared/merged with other sounds. At least in Norse Runic writing, there were no double runes in writing, either for double vowel or consonant length. The only exception should be occasional usage when the same rune was used for different sounds, such as a ie/je ("ye") combination. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 01:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect (based on a "modern example") that the "᛭" runic-cross is actually a form of quotation mark. Can someone comment or provide an original example? NevilleDNZ 05:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

as with the rest of the runic blocks, these are really glyphs, not characters. It was completely arbitrary to include those, and not others (like triple dots etc.), or common bindrunes. The Skåäng Runestone has little crosses as word dividers. Other inscriptions use other "punctuation". You cannot say "this or that symbol was used in this or that sense". Frankly, the Unicode encoding of the runic alphabet as it stands is patently pointless, since you'll only ever want to give the runic letters when they are not standard in some way. The block would have had to encode the complete set of letter variants to be useful. dab (𒁳) 07:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

ThanX for that. The Skåäng Runestone is a useful example.

The thing that prompted my query is the 1950s/60s German ALCOR (pre-ASCII) computer character set. This character set includes the runic cross, eg http://homepages.cwi.nl/~dik/english/codes/5tape.html#alcor. (and is also refered to as a iron cross). Certainly in Germany - in the 1930s - using Runic characters was "trendy", eg ᛋᛋ. But I would like to figure out why the "᛭" suddenly appears in only the 1960s German ALGOL character set. I guess I need to search elsewhere. ThanX NevilleDNZ 07:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Iron Cross decoration has nothing to do with runes, it is an 1813 design based on the emblem of the Teutonic Knights. Afaics, the character in question is a simple Jerusalem cross (cross potent ☩) and while it may be inspired by the Iron Cross I see no reason to assume it has anything to do with runes. dab (𒁳) 09:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, aside from the Jerusalem cross (☩), I also found the Maltese Cross (✠). Your 1813 vintage cross potent seems quite likely. NevilleDNZ 11:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Corpus seems vague to me
are there really no runes in all of Finland?? EVER. also inscriptions from when?? I still write runes - are those inscriptions? do they count? I think could be better written. also contradicts article as some runes in north America, Russia - are these included in this corpus? is it just stones? or books too? vis. morla stone and http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9529/scanrus.htm be good to know where source is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.198.49.178 (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No dispute
I'm not disputing the fact that that Macleod and Mees reference is a valid one but does anyone think that that part should be deleted because there isn't any note to that reference. For all we know the editor could have made that up. If no one responds to this query then I'll assume that no one cares and delete it myself (It's in the magic section). Lighthead þ 23:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Surprised
It is incredible how this article is featured, and there is nothing written in it about the bulgarian runes, probably one of the first runic alphabets used in Europe. Here's a table http://mathstat.helsinki.fi/~noykova/Neli%20Noykova%20Finnish%20language%20course_files/image002.jpg and some other things about it http://www.kroraina.com/pb_lang/pbl_2_9.html -- Tangra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.248.190 (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Bulgarian "runes" are not technically runes, and don't belong in this article, if they are significant otherwise, with scholarly reviews, they could merit their own article, linked to at the article's "See also" section. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 12:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that the Bulgarian runes are the same as those treated in the article Orkhon script.--Berig 13:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, by looking at the images linked, the letter shapes don't seem to correspond. Does anyone know anything else about these "Proto-Bulgarian runes"? Know about scholarly works to cite? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 15:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When I have a closer look some of the Bulgarian "runes" resemble cyrillic letters.--Berig 16:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This article connects the Bulgarian "runes" to the Cyrillic alphabet although it states that some of the letters are unique. It also says that they were at first thought to be derived from the Orkhon script, because of which the first interpretations failed.--Berig 16:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

yes, this sometimes comes up in Slavic national mysticist fringecruft. We used to have an article on this, but I can't find it now (maybe it was deleted). The Kuban alphabet of the Turkic Bulgars is a bona fide separate topic otoh. --dab (𒁳) 17:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got it, the keyword is "черъты и рѣзы" ("черти и резки"/"черты и резы"). This is the term Chernorizets Hrabar uses for a sign system of the early Slavs. The Russian article is at ru:Славянские руны (!), the English one at Pre-Cyrillic Slavic writing. We could link it from the "see also" section here. dab (𒁳) 17:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! Perhaps a redirect named "Bulgarian runes" could go there.--Berig 18:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Czech article on the Interwiki seems (?) to be about a different topic, though. On the image http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soubor:Venedic_runes.jpg, several letters actually seem to be derived from runes (from the younger futhark). 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 18:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * that's probably because the Czech article is wild-eyed WP:SYN. dab (𒁳) 18:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know any Czech, but I tried to read the article Venedsk%C3%A9_p%C3%ADsmo for sources and historical information, but there didn't seem to be much given. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 23:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * for the record, this is the source used by Nasz (talk · contribs) in his original article on the topic: an attempt to identify the Kuban inscriptions with the alleged Slavic "черъты и рѣзы" (viz., Slavic decipherment of Turkic inscriptions). dab (𒁳) 20:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh my! Skimming it, I thought the text looked plausible until he began to talk about the Phaistos Disc and Osiris.--Berig 20:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Rune "Uruz"
It seems that when I see the image version of Uruz here on Wikipedia, it is a straight line with another line pointing out to the side reaching the bottom. I've only seen this with Junicode. Every other runic font I have used (Code2001, Skiers, etc) or seen has a "staple style" uruz which looks like the corresponding character in the Gothic alphabet. Which one is correct here? Jacques Pirat Talk 22:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * both variants (and intermediate forms) occur from early times. E.g. compare the shapes of Kylver with Seeland-II-C, Tjorkö and Stentoften. --dab (𒁳) 15:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the problem with unicode is that it only shows a fraction of all the forms that runes took in the inscriptions and in the various forms of the Younger futhark, see e.g. ansuz rune. I am considering scanning pictures from a book I have, but that would take some time.--Berig 15:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * this is not really a "problem" of Unicode as such, since Unicode was never intended to render epigraphy in the first place. We could devise a library of glyph shapes for Wikipedia and discuss them at Runic paleography or similar. A dedicated OTF font could be built to address all glyph variants and ligatures needed, but this will be useless for the purposes of internet typography. --dab (𒁳) 15:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you. Jacques Pirat Talk 20:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of runic inscriptions per square kilometer
I removed the calculations of the number of runic inscriptions in the Scandinavian countries divided by the area of the Scandinavian countries in square kilometers. First of all, it clearly qualifies as Original Research, but more importantly, it's irrelevant and misleading, for these reasons: The calculations are based on the area of the Nordic countries, as of 2007. The present borders of Denmark date from after the first world war, and of Sweden and Norway also from modern times. The number of square kilometers these countries make up today bears no relevance to the world in which the runic inscriptions were made. Norway and Sweden contain large tracts of uninhabited mountains and forests, which Denmark does not. The northern parts of Sweden and Norway were not populated, or at least only very scarcely, by old Norse speaking rune-users in the time period when runes were used. About one sixth of the area of Norway, as used in the table, is made up of Svalbard, which wasn't even discovered until the 12th century (probably), and even today only has a semi-permanent population. If one wants to say something meaningful about the geographical distribution of runic inscriptions, this isn't the way to do it, this is just a meaningless game with numbers. What could be interesting is pointing out clusters of runic inscriptions, smaller areas where especially large numbers might have been found (such as the Bryggen inscriptions in Bergen, or the Maeshowe inscriptions), and so on. --Barend (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. There might be some merit in doing this by province though. Also, a scatterplot of find locations would be excellent (do we have the data for this?) dab (𒁳) 17:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I where the one who added the number of runic inscriptions per square kilometer. I agree that info about clusters of runic inscriptions would be awesome. But none of the less a "per square kilometer" row, is in my opinion not at all misleading in any way. It's not a competition, about where there are most runic inscriptions or anything. Svalbard being a part of Norway, now and not then, is not the point. It's a standard statistic info, witch inform of the whereabouts of the Vikings, and indeed the viking placements of the rune stones, in the country borders we know now. Just as number of runic inscriptions are placed in. I only added calculations for the Scandinavian countries, hoping others would add, calculations for the others. This is my first talk page edit, hope I'm doing it right. UlrikOldenburg (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * the problem is, as Barend has pointed out, that the current sizes of the countries of Sweden and Norway has nothing to do with the size of historical Sweden and Norway.They are, rather, determined by the amount of land stretching north from the polar circle, which was uninhabited anyway, so that a calculation along the lines you propose would be meaningless. dab (𒁳) 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Staveless runes
Staveless runes lack HORIZONTAL strokes, NOT vertical. You can see this clearly in the image. Also, a stave (aka "staff") is a horizontal bar. It's obvious what it should be but someone keeps changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.170.20 (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Look it up in any reference work. The staffs are the vertical strokes. Staveless runes lack them.--Barend (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Will you link me then please? The image for Staveless Runes contains MANY vertical strokes and not a single horizontal one. Saying they lack vertical strokes when the image shows plenty of vertical strokes is quite contradictory. I agree with 206.126.170.20 ·:RedAugust (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * what are you talking about? None of the runes have any horizontal strokes, that has nothing to do with it. The point is that all of the Younger Futhark have a full length vertical stroke, while only two of the staveless ones do (and these consist of the stroke, they are not attached to it). dab (𒁳) 17:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK that makes a LOT more sense. To anyone who doesn't make that connection (such as myself and the above) it's very ambiguous. I think it should be edited to be worded the way you've just done. ·:RedAugust (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * feel free to have a go :) --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal icon placement
FYI, you can add a link to Portal:Norway in this article, by placing at the top of the see also section (or the external links section if the article has no see also section). This will display

Cirt (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nasal a

 * However, the first A in the fuþark was nasal, hence originally close to an o.

Hi, what is the above supposed to mean? Nasality of vowels can be independent from vowel quality (in terms of formant frequencies). --Kjoonlee 16:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess it means that the original sound, which was a nasal a, turned into an o-phoneme in Anglo-Saxon.--Berig (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * this is difficult. The /a/ itself wasn't nasal, the /a/ in the word *ansuz just became nasal because of the following /n/. But the association of the a rune with its name ansuz > áss appears to have been so strong that the letter value itself has assumed nasality, so that both in the younger and the Anglo-Saxon row, a new rune for /a/ proper was needed. dab (𒁳) 09:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Individual letter articles

 * The discussion was moved to the runic studies talk page on 22 May 2008.

there is some discussion on what to do with the articles on the individual runes. Many of them are certainly stubby and need attention. Although it is better to have an informative stub than a rambling page of nonsense. Bloodofox (talk · contribs) thinks they are a "mess" in need of standardization. See here and here. We are looking at the following issues: anyway, informed third opinions are welcome. I am presenting the question here (as boo should have done) to allow centralized discussion between interested parties. I would certainly welcome further expansion and cleanup of the rune articles as long as it happens with expertise and circumspection. If there is an interest in "standardization" of these articles, I refer to the thought I have put into "infoboxes" further up on this page (February 2006). this arrangement is flexible enough to capture the key data of each rune (with some fields remaining empty depending on the situation). I'll try to implement this in a runic letter template. dab (𒁳) 09:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * this is clearly an article series, tied together by the Runes navbox. However the nature of the various articles isn't uniform. Some runes are attested in all rows without complications (Fehu), some are in all rows but have a complicated history (Ansuz). Some are not in the Younger Futhark and hence best known from Anglo-Saxon (Gyfu). Some are not in the Elder Futhark (Yr rune, Ear rune).
 * due to this heterogenous situation, it is difficult to pick the best article title per WP:NAME. Bloodofox recently moved all Elder Futhark rune articles the Proto-Germanic name, including the asterisk (*Fehu). In the case of thej rune, he chose the stem (because of an uncertainty of reconstruction), *Jēra-, but in other cases of uncertainty, he just chose one possibility, as in *Ûruz (rune) (why the disambiguating "(rune)" I'm not sure. I have reverted these moves as undiscussed, but I recognize we can discuss this. I do not think it makes sense to stick to asingle over-arching naming principle, because of the complicated situation of these names. For example, Peorð is an Elder Futhark rune, but it is pointless to move it to a Common Germanic title (with or without asterisk), because such a name simply isn't known. The Anglo-Saxon name Peorð is arguable, but perhaps the simple title P rune would be more satisfactory. In fact, a system if F rune, U rune etc. would be the only "unified" approach that I can see as making sense. But do we want that?
 * the asterisk in reconstructed article titles (Wodanaz, Perkwunos etc.) is an independent question. I am clearly opposed to it. I don't think it will fly, at all, with WP:NAME. Technical special characters should be avoided in article titles if possible. For this, look to mathematics topics: we have Chi-squared test, not χ² test, for good reasons. If the mathematicians can title that article "Chi-squared test", we certainly can do with Jēran or even Jeran over *Jēra- and Perkwunos over *Perkʷunos.
 * I gave it a try, but I think it will probably be quicker to do the 30 or so tables manually than to come up with the complicated template code required to automatize this... The disadvantag being, of course, that 30 templates will be more tedious to maintain than a single template however complicated. So, I've installed an example "infobox" at Fehu (see Template:Fehu infobox), along the lines I suggested back in February 06, and I'll wait for comments before I go any further with this. dab (𒁳) 10:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A few responses to questions raised by Dab at my article moves - some of the articles had names such as "runename (rune)" and "runename rune" so I just standardized them into "runename (rune)". For others, I just asterisked their commonly known Elder Futhark variant and moved on (though I could have potentially have chosen other options). Since this is standard practice and ought to be done whenever the names are written to show that they're unattested reconstructions, I figured it wouldn't be a problem and just went ahead and did it but Dab has given me some resistance about it. Anyway, outside of my asterisks-in-title proposal, here's a few points:


 * 1) Standardization. I think it's possible to work out a sort of standardized format of these articles and that it would be the best option for them. For example, many of the introductions don't require much variance in their development history from one another. Most of the articles can have a standardized body reflecting the development of the rune. Of course, runes such as *perþ- will require extra explanation as to why there's so much confusion surrounding them.
 * 2) References. These articles are badly in need of references and need badly need pruning. I've done this over the last few years but haven't focused heavily on bringing these articles up to standard in some time - having a system in place would be helpful. Recently, I've been heavily editing and attempting to bring this article, the Runic alphabet article, up to snuff and will continue to do so.
 * 3) I think the box would be helpful, though the "position" might need some clarification if it's to be used. For example, "futhark and futhorc position" would be more helpful - most people will have no idea what you mean.bloodofox: (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 0. "runename (rune)" -- a bad idea. I've had this discussion on Talk:Ogham (in an Ogham context, obviously). The idea is based on a misunderstanding of WP:DAB.
 * 1. standardisation is a good thing as long as it doesn't become an end unto itself (ask User:Reddi). The case at Ansuz (rune) (lots of evolution) will necessarily be much more involved than at Fehu (no evolution whatsoever).
 * 2. references are welcome of course, although the present articles can easily be summarily referenced to a standard introduction such as Düwel (2001). I don't know about "pruning". But I appreciate your attack of the Rune poems content that I agree has been in disarray for some time now (still, I object to the "mess". I didn't bother to do this prettily, but I submit it is better to have the basic information than nothing at all. As it stands, we've had the basic information on wiki since late 2004, which was certainly preferable to waiting until 2008 for somebody to do this "properly".)
 * 3. -- granted, you are welcome to fiddle with it. I am trying to keep the table as concise but informative as possible.
 * I am not trying to keep you from improving the articles, boo. Straightforward cleanup work such as Holt's is certainly welcome. This is different from questions of actual scholarly content, notation, reconstruction etc., which are very easy to get wrong.
 * dab (𒁳) 13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the "runename (rune)" setup, it wasn't my idea, I was standardizing them when moving them. Regarding references, these articles shouldn't have references as some sort of bonus - they need to be entirely referenced and lock-solidly or they can simply be removed by anyone around and, in many cases, should be. It's good that we have a framework to work with, I suppose, but without references it can be worse than nothing. bloodofox: (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * no problem. I never objected to your adding references. But when information is completely undisputed and is confirmed in any primer on the subject, referencing can be looser than in cases of arcane or disputed topics. It seems you are not always sure which case applies, as showcased e.g. here. This is an example of what we certainly do not want. You show similar lack of judgement here where you tag fact to a verbatim quote of a statement from a source that was explicitly stated. You just seemed to think it necessary that each and every sentence in a paragraph must have a footnote. I'll be the first to admit that you have learned much about Germanic topics since you first came here in December 2005, and you may be a living proof that Wikipedia can function as "the university that anyone can edit" for those willing to participate, but you still show some erratic behaviour when it comes to distinguishing exceptional claims from mere standard handbook stuff.
 * anyway, I created a Category:Rune infoboxes and intend to fill it with these infobox templates over the next days. You are most welcome to help. dab (𒁳) 07:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're a funny guy, Dab. First of all, I didn't put any of those references there on the Óðr page in the edit you show - I simply restored it after you mass removed it in the wake of a better write up. You removed them all again and so it's since been pulled by myself in hopes of a better write up. If anyone here has a problem understanding that material must be referenced, I'm afraid it's you (as these runic articles attest). Secondly, regarding the McNallen quote (where I moved the reference to directly attribute the quote) if I tagged it originally, I'm not sure why. Still, I think anyone who goes through my edit history can well see I'm very familiar and very solid with my sources - unlike yourself.


 * In fact, with the Óðr article, I'm responsible for almost all of what is there and solidly referenced at the moment. My contributions there are completely in line with WP:GA standards, something I strive for in all of my edits.


 * Look, Dab, I know you're still angry with me about my involvement in your Arbcom (that didn't go so well for you) but you really ought to get over it and show some civility - which is policy, by the way. For example, there's no need to make claims about my knowledge of Germanic paganism in comparison to your own in some petty attempt at belittlement, and this business about "the University that anyone can edit" - How absolutely absurd. Save me the personal attacks. Comments like these are absolutely not necessary: you know nothing about me outside of my edit history, which you seem very fond of pulling "examples" out of that are, at times, over two years old. How is that necessary or constructive? bloodofox: (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not wasted a thought on that case in recent weeks. This wasn't your fault. I am perfectly civil, and I have no idea why you are linking to the WP:CIVIL page for my benefit. Any particular passage you'd like to point out? I am commenting on the quality of your edits. You have a long history of well-meaning but uninformed editing. I am not referring to the instances of your ideological pov pushing, they have nothing to do with this. Ok, so you tried to hitch a ride on a completely unrelated arbcom case in an attempt to shoot me down. To the extent that this does reveal something of your personality -- I am happy to ignore that in the interest of keeping this completely non-personal: I really don't care who you are or what you believe in, I am commenting on the quality of your edits. I am prepared to admit that the quality of your edits has generally improved, but I must say that you still tend to create a cost for others with your ill-advised "cleanup" campaigns. No problem, there are many editors who do much worse. If you cannot accept partial praise, forget I tried to give you partial praise. As for "adding references", why haven't you done that for the rune article instead of wasting your breath about it? Just slap Düwel on each article for a start. I agree this would be an improvement. It is really beyond me why you indulge in second-guessing my "understanding" of WP:CITE instead of just going in there and adding the bleeding references. dab (𒁳) 12:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If that was praise, I'd hate to see your criticism! Further, if that "cost for others" is to get them to reference their contributions, that is policy. I don't believe there was any reason for me not to be involved in your Arbcom - it was open to anyone and I felt it was necessary. Regarding referencing, I'll start by referencing the names and meanings of the individual Elder Futhark runes when I get a chance - I generally feel responding to people is more pressing. Also, I'm curious about this "ideological POV pushing" - can you be more specific? bloodofox: (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * whatever. No, I will not discuss our past ideological exchanges on this page. Yes, you are welcome to cleaning up the "mess" at rune poem and to "referencing the names and meanings of the individual Elder Futhark runes" (as long as this doesn't result articles littered with footnotes Óðr-style. dab (𒁳) 13:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion was moved to the runic studies talk page on 22 May 2008.

Standard Outline

 * The discussion was moved to the runic studies talk page on 21 May 2008.

Though this topic is something I wanted to tackle as part of a coordinated Ancient Germanic studies project, it seems that important decisions are being made now. I would like to come back to a point raised earlier: a 'standardized' outline. Do either of you have any concrete ideas here? I was thinking something like the following:


 * Lead
 * (ToC)
 * Etymology
 * History (incl. Developmental theories, e.g. Mees (Celtic), Taylor (Greek), Vennemann (Phoenician), etc.; and developmentally antecedent/subsequent runes)
 * Usage
 * Phonetic value
 * Rune Poems
 * Pop Culture (?)

Criticism is expected - but so are concrete alternative proposals. Ideas? —Aryaman (Enlist!) 11:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This sounds perfectly acceptable to me. This is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. I guess the question is how exactly should we propose the lead? I think they can be largely standardized, maybe something like this for most of them:
 * *Runename is the reconstructed Proto-Germanic name for the (letter value)-rune in the Elder Futhark meaning "meaning, meaning, meaning".(ref) This reconstruction is based off of the attested (poem rune), (poem rune), (poem rune), and is related to (gothic letter name).


 * Of course, considering certain runes have a more problematic reconstruction than others, we ought to figure in what to be written in this circumstance for the lead. bloodofox: (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A very constructive contribution, Varoon. Standardization will massively improve the overall standard of the separate rune articles, and we won't get deficient and untidy articles like for example the Gyfu page. Since the rune poems are essential to the understanding of the meaning of the rune names, I think it would be more natural to move the "Rune Poems" section further up, by making it a sub-section of "Etymology" (assuming the etymologic section will deal with the meaning of the name, correct me if I'm wrong). I realize the rune poem tables I have made the last couple of days may lead to some aesthetic flaws due to the space they take, but so far this solution for the rune poems is better than how it was earlier, in my opinion. The last section called "Pop culture" should perhaps have a more neutral name like "Modern usage", and an "Ancient usage" section can be added as a counterpart, as in the current Tiwaz rune article. The "Phonetic value" section is superfluous if we are going to keep the rune infoboxes Dab has been adding lately. So to sum it up, here's the slightly altered version that I have in mind:


 * Lead (with the rune infobox)
 * (ToC)
 * Etymology
 * Rune Poems
 * History (incl. Developmental theories, e.g. Mees (Celtic), Taylor (Greek), Vennemann (Phoenician), etc.; and developmentally antecedent/subsequent runes)
 * Usage
 * Ancient usage (if there is anything noteworthy)
 * Modern usage (same as above)


 * Bloodofox' lead section suggestion sounds good to me. --Holt (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As for a standard outline for the rune article names (discussed above), I think the reconstructed Proto-Germanic name without any special characters or asterixes is fitting. Adding "rune" (no parentheses) after the Proto-Germanic name can also ward off any disambiguation problems, and clears up confusion - most people know the runes by other names, most likely the Younger Futhark ones. Where there are several reconstructions (as with *Laguz/Laukaz), the most plausible and commonly accepted term is a natural choice (*Laguz in this case), but when there are two equally accepted conflicting names (as with *Ūruz/Ûram), what is the solution here? It would be wise to have a standard template, to prevent unpleasant situations ( - ). When it comes to implementing these standardizations, I suppose we'll handle that under controlled circumstances as a part of the Ancient Germanic studies project. --Holt (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: Naming conventions: This is inherently tricky territory, as equally qualified experts are frequently at variance with one another and often give little to no reasoning behind their reconstructions. Case in point: Düwel (2001) has *Laguz, Haarmann (1998) has *Laukaz. Neither give good reasons for their choice, and I don't think we are going to find any sources that can decide the matter conclusively (even Düwel is undecided on a few, giving both *Īsaz/Īsan, *Haglaz/Haglan and *Ōþalan/Ōþilan. I suggest that we gather our sources and then simply decide upon one or the other convention based upon frequency of occurrence and consistency and then apply that standard universally. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 14:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. I support your suggestion. --Holt (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would advise against artificial standardization of article names. WP:NAME tells us to pick the most common name for the topic. For a well-attested rune like the g rune, this may well be gyfu, while for an obscure rune like p, this may indeed be "p rune". Runes that survive both in Anglo-Saxon and Younger Futhark rows, the runes will be known by at least two names, depending on context (strictly speaking, an Anglo-Saxon f rune is not the "same" letter as a YF f rune, but not even Unicode makes this distinction). WP:UCS on a case by case basis will be needed there. dab (𒁳) 18:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion was moved to the runic studies talk page on 21 May 2008.

Image copyright problem with Image:Bluetooth.svg
The image Image:Bluetooth.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --20:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Link to alfatruin.msk.ru
I deleted this following the guidance at WP:EL and which says:

Webpages in English are highly preferred. Linking to non-English pages may still be useful for readers in the following cases:

when the website is the subject of the article

when linking to pages with maps, diagrams, photos, tables (explain the key terms with the link, so that people who do not know the language can interpret them)

when the webpage contains key or authoritative information found on no English-language site and is used as a citation (or when translations on English-language sites are not authoritative).

Particularly we already have slightly more links than we should have, I'd like to know the rationale for having this one. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't approve of deleting links just because there isn't enough English on them, particularly when they are related to linguistics. Having said that, I'm not fighting for this, though I think content on the link in question was interesting. -- Evertype·✆ 08:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

this isn't about the Russian bits at all. The question is, should we link to Jon Olafsson of Grunnavik's MS. Runologia. This seems to be a notable early (18th century) work on runology. As long as we keep a separate runology article discussing the history of research, this manuscript should probably be discussed there. Better yet, we need an English equivalent of the is:Jón Grunnvíkingur article. Just linking to an 18th century treatise on runology without comment isn't very helpul. --dab (𒁳) 08:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I note we have a redlink to Jón Ólafsson (runologist) at Jón Ólafsson. This is the article we should develop, and the alfatruin.msk.ru link would properly be placed there. --dab (𒁳) 09:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Old Turkic Script?
It is claimed here that the Runnic scripts and the ancient Turkic (Gokturk) scripts may have some relation between each other. Has any further search done about this yet? Some signs/letters in Gokturk Runes look really similar, especially a, i, u etc.. Yasakresim (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The relation between individual similar letters considering sound value seems close to zero. Apparently, most alphabets carved on wood etc. tend to look similar. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't read the resource, did you? Even you don't bother to read, do you? They can read the Runic script in ancient Gokturk language: http://www.antalya-ws.com/futhark/FUTHP3E.HTM 88.241.162.147 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I know just about nothing of Turkish historical linguistics, but the technique used on the article seems to be based on connecting different runes based on external appearance, and then sort of interpret anything out of the result that roughly looks like Old Turkish and roughly makes sense. Looks extremely speculative. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Viewing / Display
Even if the instructions found on the linked page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Special_characters the runic characters are still not displayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.184.65 (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Significance of punctuation
The article mentions three punctuation marks for Runic. From what I can discern from my copy of the Hobbit (yes, an original runic source! :) ), it seems that the single punctuation was used instead of a space, and the multiple punctuation instead of a full-stop, but I'm unable to find anything concerning the use of the cross punctuation. Would anyone like to amend the article to fix this?  -- TimNelson (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source that says this? I'm seeing reliable sources mention the three punctuation marks in the Unicode standard, but none about punctuation marks being used in runic alphabets.  If some runic alphabets do use punctuation, it would need to be clarified which ones, but using a copy of the Hobbit to draw that conclusion is original research, and would need to be verified with a reliable source.

"runot"
Unlike mentioned in the text, "runot" means "poems" not "song" in Finnish language. (84.248.114.173 (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC))

Use in computer systems
Shouldn't the caption "Unicode" better be "Typesetting in computer systems"? Because that would enable it to be more general and allow information like "Runes can be produces in LaTeX with various packages such as the Futhark, Anglo-Saxon Futharc or the more general packages Runic or Allrunes." Would that be appropriate? Peterthewall (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

unicode characters
How do I get the intext runic to display on my computere. on every lemma about rune's I only get squares when ever there is a unicode rune used.

via the special character help page I changed my settings utf8 and sett my lettertype to a Unicode one. but for both Chrome and IE this does not do the trick.

Ian Splinter (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have the same problem with Safari and Firefox (for Mac). Where does one get the font set to be able to see these characters in the article? --VanBurenen (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * With some help from the people on the Dutch wikipedia and this website: http://www.hotpeachpages.net/a/characters.html I found that the font 'Code2000' supports the Runic characters. Ian Splinter (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I use Google Chrome on Windows 7. You can find step by step instructions on configuring it to display runes in Unicode here. Placebo69a (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have at my work Internet Explorer 10 and Firefox, running on Windows 7. The runes in this article work right away for both browsers. At home I have Internet Explorer and Chrome, also on Windows 7 where IE works right away, but Chrome does not, unless setting a default font which contains runes.--BIL (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Are we ready to show runes in articles about rune stones? It adds to the stone articles to be able to see the runes and comparing them to the image (if the runes work of course).--BIL (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Direction
It is obvious on the that the runes, along with moving left-to-right when on the top, also move top-to-bottom if on the right side, right-to-left if on the bottom, and bottom-to-top if on the left side. I have no clue how to change it in the box on the right on the page. If someone knows how, that person should fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCLarsson (talk • contribs) 23:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Native of Cumae
It was founded by Euboean Greeks who used a local variant of the Greek alphabet, the Euboean alphabet. This alphabet developed into the Latin alphabet, the world's most widely used phonemic script, after it was adopted and modified first by the Etruscans (800–100 BC) and then by the Romans (300–100 BC).--151.46.171.113 (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. Cumae was only one of a number of cities and places in Italy where the Euboean alphabet was used, an alphabet that did not originate in Cumae, but came from Euboea in Greece, along with the Greek settlers who founded Cumae and other cities in what is now Italy. So Cumae is no more relevant to this article than any other place where the Euboean alphabet was used. Thomas.W talk
 * The runes developed centuries after the Old Italic alphabets from which they are historically derived.Old Italic refers to any of several now extinct alphabet systems used on the Italian Peninsula in ancient times for various Indo-European languages (predominantly Italic) and non-Indo-European (e.g. Etruscan) languages. The alphabets derive from the Euboean Greek Cumaean alphabet, used at Ischia and Cumae in the Bay of Naples in the eighth century BC.The Germanic runic alphabet was derived from one of these alphabets by the 2nd century.This information is basic and fundamental in this context.--151.46.171.113 (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just one of several possibilities. As the article says: "Historically, the runic alphabet is a derivation of the Old Italic alphabets of antiquity, with the addition of some innovations. Which variant of the Old Italic family in particular gave rise to the runes is uncertain. Suggestions include Raetic, Etruscan, or Old Latin as candidates. At the time, all of these scripts had the same angular letter shapes suited for epigraphy, which would become characteristic of the runes". And since the current scientific standpoint seems to be that noone knows which of the old Italic alphabets Runes derived from, and the section about the Etruscan alphabet in the article about the Old Italic script says that "It is not clear whether the process of adaptation from the Greek alphabet took place in Italy from the first colony of Greeks, the city of Cumae, or in Greece/Asia Minor", a direct link between Runes and the subvariety of the Euboean alphabet used in Cumae hasn't been proven. Thomas.W talk 09:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok... but this "derivation" is the most accredited through the Greek and Etruscan archaeological remains of these places...the others are mere hypotheses--151.46.171.113 (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please cite some sources? Yngvadottir (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK.--151.46.171.113 (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you be a bit more specific? We need both page number, and a direct quote. I don't have access to the book right now (even though I can get it), but a search in the book on Amazon returns nothing, neither for "runes" nor for "Cumae". So according to Amazon Lilian Hamilton Jeffery mentions neither runes nor Cumae in her book. It would also be very much out of scope for that book, both in time and in geographical location, since the book is the printed version of Jeffery's dissertation on The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece. So until you provide more details I'm going to revert your edit... Thomas.W talk 14:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK p.79 but "Cumae" is latin..."Kyme" is greek.--151.46.171.113 (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I still can't find any mention of runes, runic, Germanic or anything else relating to that in the book. Which makes your claim about a direct link between Cumae and the runic alphabet WP:SYNTH, which is not permitted on WP. If you can't provide a reliable source that directly/expressly states that there's a direct link between the runic alphabet and the Eboean Greek of Cumae it's not getting into the article. And I suggest you start by quoting the text on p 79 that you say supports your claim. Thomas.W talk 15:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, can we please have a quote? The p. 79 passage the search shows me is not germane, and that page is not shown in the full-page preview. I've also searched Google Books, Google Scholar, and JSTOR trying to find someone else referring to that book in this context and come up empty-handed, but I note that the 2nd edition reflected considerably changed views on the situation in Sicily and Italy in any case, so it's also possible the viewpoint is outmoded in the light of later discoveries. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * we talk about "Old Italic alphabets" in particular the "Cumae variant" and how this "variant" is the basis of the Italic alphabets such as the Etruscan and Latin. This source is very reliable ... but i can't say more.--151.46.171.113 (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the geographical origin of the Etruscan alphabet, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, is disputed, with some saying Italy and others saying Greece/Asia Minor. That's why we need a reference that expressly states that there's a direct link between Cumae and the runic alphabet. Thomas.W talk 15:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Or put another way - isn't that a different issue from the origin of the runes? In any case, who is "we"? As you can see from what is already in the article, scholars have disagreed about the exact derivation of the runes. Anything added on the issue needs to have a specific reference, not just be based on what one group - even if it is a university faculty or a learned society - says. I'd truly like to have the quote, but I'm beginning to think you have confused the origins of the Italic alphabets with the origins of the runes. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The runic alphabet derives from the Etruscan alphabet ... the connection between the Cumae variant and Germanic runes is indirect because comes from the Etruscan. Cumae variant (which derives from the greek) is the basis of these new alphabets : Etruscan, Latin, runic ... and as far as the origins of the runic alphabet I believe that it is essential and important to take into account the Cumae variant ... what do you think about?--151.46.171.113 (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we need sources. Neither nor  appear to mention Cumae. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That the runic alphabet derives from the Etruscan alphabet has not been proven, and is a matter of debate between scholars, which is why the article says that it most probably derives from either the Etruscan, the Rhaetic or the Old Latin alphabet. And indirect connections are not allowed, which is why I pointed you to WP:SYNTH in an earlier post of mine in this thread. Thomas.W talk 17:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC) (Has anyone else noticed that we are most probably debating with two separate individuals, using the same IP? Both the style and the command of English in the latest couple of posts differs from the style and the English in the first few posts...)
 * Dougweller thanks for your sources :D (i'm 151.46.171.113)--151.47.20.94 (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Perþ
Any source for perth meaning pear-tree? The first thing that comes to my mind when I see or hear it is the Swedish word Pärta, which means Shingle(Wooden Roof Tile) and that might possibly be a more logical sollution since I don't really know how common pear trees were in northern Europe in the Middle Ages, but I know wooden roofs were very common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.226.49 (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Phoenician letters
I have re-reverted an edit in which the origin of the runes from Phoenician letters is added to the lede. IP, please provide your sources here. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC) ... I've now tracked down what the IP is misunderstanding: Phoenician letters are listed in the infobox at Elder futhark as the parent of the Italic alphabets thought to be the source of the rune forms. That does not amount to immediate derivation from Phoenician or any other Levantine alphabet. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * there is a relationship between the alphabets. question is - which came first. if you provide a history of the norse prior to the fairhairs - there can be something. for now, ROME Holds. amanbir 117.236.114.91 (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The dominant scholarly view is that the forms of the runes derive from Northern Italic alphabets. Those in turn are ultimately derived from the Phoenician alphabet. That does not mean that the runes are "derived from Phoenician letters". If you are now saying that the Phoenician alphabet is older - well, duh. But derivation from something that is ultimately derived from something else is not the same as being derived from that something else. The intermediate steps matter. So is it clear now? Or do you have a source to cite for the view that the runes are derived immediately from Phoenician letters? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, I notice you sign here and on my talk page as "amanbir grewal". Are you the same person as User:Amanbir Singh Grewal? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * i think i have made my gains to get you off the norse supremacy table :) . now i just have to use you against the other unbelievers :) . and what is this Contribution in the intermediate.  tell me what you know of the germans/poles/balts.  and what is a Zero Sum game?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.2.204 (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Zero-sum mentality is probably clearest. I'll ask again: do you have a scholarly source to cite in support of the argument that the runes are directly derived from Phoenician letters? Otherwise, you are not proposing an improvement to the article, just misinterpreting or oversimplifying what is explained here and at Elder Futhark. There is no "supremacy" involved. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to just blank the last couple of sections here? This is all nonsense and a waste of time. Everyone knows runes were invented by Ray Page. Don't feed the trolls. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The "Phoenician hypothesis" originates with Theo Vennemann, who is notorious for promoting (to put it politely) fanciful speculation, which is then invariably eaten up by amateurs (including credulous scholars not competent in the relevant field); he's like that funny uncle who loves telling stories: less politely worded, he's a factory of popular crank theories much like Quentin Atkinson. Hilariously, the "hypothesis" never seems to address all the other letters of the futhark. You always get precisely one example of a possible correlation, namely aleph – fehu, and you're asked to just have faith that the other names can be similarly correlated. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

2nd-century-BC runes
Whilst translating an academic book from the Spanish I have just come across a silver Roman denarius dated at the second century BC. This coin has six runic characters making a word on the reverse. I am attempting to identify the head of which Emperor appears on the face. If confirmed it will shift the date of the first known runic script back by three centuries. Geoffreybrooks (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you considered the possibility that these "runes" might be taken from a different, superficially similar, writing system such as the Celtiberian script (the most obvious candidate, probably)? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The Frienstedt comb - Another runic inscription in Finnic language
http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/date/2012/05/page/3 http://www.zbsa.eu/news/news-2012/oldest-evidence-of-westgermanic-language

In 2003 another comb, with a runic inscription KABA, dating to the 3rd century AD, was found in Frienstedt, City of Erfurt. It has been claimed that "this is the earliest proof of the West Germanic language", but I strongly contest such a claim. The hypothetical Proto-Germanic language has the word "kambaz" with Z, but not KAMBA or KABA without Z.

The letters on the Frienstedt comb KABA are to be read as “Ka(m)ba, and of course in modern Finnish the word KAMPA is the word for comb.

Funny that IN THIS CASE the meaning of the word KABA is not disputed... This supports my previous theory, that the word HARJA on the Vimose Comb, too, simply denotes the object and is not a name of the owner.

Let's again keep in mind that until c. 500 AD runes were mainly used in Fennoscandia/Scandinavia, and from 100BC until at least 1000AD practically the entire Fennoscandian and Baltic area was ruled by Finnish tribes. 91.155.236.125 (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First, you need to stop making absurd claims like "at least 1000AD practically the entire Fennoscandian and Baltic area was ruled by Finnish tribes". Most people with their toe in the water will just write you off then and there. Second, stop linking to amateur websites as references. Find published academic material and present it in a neutral manner. Do these two things and you'll be taken much more seriously and conversation can continue. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Stop reversing my edits and stop calling the given information as "absurd" only because you personally don't like it. You haven't provided any sources to prove your point, nor to disprove my point. Reliable sources have been brought under your nose to prove what I'm saying. Here is one: http://www.emersonkent.com/images/maps/europe_814.jpg

You have exactly 24 hours to disprove what I have written and if you are unable to do so, nothing will stop me from reversing my edits back the way I did them. I'm willing to explain and reference things to anyone interested. To you, however, I will only respond when you have shown me the sources I'm asking for. Do not bother filling this conversation with your personal nonsensical and unscientific views, because nobody is interested in you. If you have no documents to show, do not waste my time. 91.155.236.125 (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Can we get some admin attention here? This user is also making similarly ridiculous (and maybe nationalistic?) edits like these and these on less visible articles. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

More information supporting previous information:

http://runer.ku.dk/VisGenstand.aspx?Titel=Vimose-kam - "Tolkes som runeristerens eller ejerens navn. Et alternativt forslag er, at harja kan oversættes med 'kam' (Seebold 1994, 71)." Translation: “An alternative suggestion is that HARJA can be translated as a “comb”.”

The Swedish expert Ove Berg writes in his book “Runsvenska, svenska, finska” (published in 2003) that “he has been able to translate older runes with Finnish rather than with Swedish”. http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=185&artikel=375080 http://www.books.google.com/books?isbn=9163129868 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.236.125 (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Can we get a ban on this user already? Just look at his edit history. He's inserting nonsense all over a variety of articles now, based on "old maps" and the truly internet forum notion that English derived from Finno-Ugric (or maybe even Proto-Finnic, who knows given that he or she has thrown all science to the wind) stock. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Aw, I see you're twisting my words in order to try to gain false sympathy points. You wrap your nationalism in pseudoscience and biased speculation. I have asked you to present sources to prove your claims but you haven't done so. Until you do, stop wasting my time and stop vandalising the articles I'm trying to improve and stop filling this page with your biased attitude. People come here to read about runes, not about you.


 * I'm still waiting to see the sources, Bloodofox, that prove your preferred theories.... Do you have them? Do they even exist...? 91.155.236.125 (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Professor of Phonetics Kalevi Wiik wrote in 1999: "My most decisive claim is that the Germanic, Baltic and Slavic languages were born under the influence of the Finno-Ugrian languages in the context of a shift in language from Finno-Ugrian to Indo-European." http://www.finlit.fi/booksfromfinland/bff/399/wiik.htm

The Swedish Henrik O. Andersson, too, writes in his book: "Finska element i svenska ortnamn", ISBN 91-86016-29-6, that "Many things speak in favor of the Finnish language being the linguistic forerunner of the Germanic languages in Northern Europe. Swedish place names bear witness to this most clearly." 91.155.236.125 (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A couple of points related to the evidence being adduced here. I cannot see Andersson's book, but all the cited sentences are saying is that places in the (far?) North had Finnish (Finnish and Sami?) names before they had Germanic names. That is not at all the same thing as Finno-Ugric/Altaic being the ancestor of the Germanic languages - it simply refers to what language was spoken by the people who inhabited the area first. Also, Wiik's theory that Finno-Ugric is the ancestor of the Germanic language family has met with general disagreement. It is given as an example of a "completely unsubstantiated idea" in a review by Raimo Anttila of Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, Language 81.4 (December 2005) (JSTOR page link), and anything beyond his point that the phonemes of Finnish influenced Old East Norse was "hotly contested" in Finland - review by George Maude of Finns in the Shadow of the 'Aryans': Race Theories and Racism by Aira Kemiläinen, The Slavonic and East European Review 77.4, (Oct. 1999)(JSTOR page link). In short, a not generally accepted view. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Kalevi Wiik's idea is not that Germanic descends from Uralic, but that the Germanic peoples descend from Finno-Ugrians, and that the substratum of Germanic is Uralic. Of course, that's still bullshit.
 * The reason why many early Germanic words look similar to Finnish words is that Finnish (or its Finnic predecessor) has borrowed a lot of words from early Germanic, and preserved them relatively closely (especially with regard to vocalism). Peter Schrijver has suggested that Proto-Germanic itself might have been spoken in Southwestern Finland, but that idea hasn't been taken up by other researchers. It's accepted, however, that Germanic was spoken in the Gulf of Finland area very early, at the turn of the eras, when all dialects of Germanic were still very similar to Proto-Germanic, and early Germanic words entered both Proto-Saami and Proto-Finnic in this region.
 * As for the Frienstedt comb, the reason why this and some other early inscriptions are often identified as specifically West Germanic is the missing -z ending – instead of *kambaz, you have ka(m)ba. West Germanic is the only branch of Germanic where final -z was dropped (except in monosyllables) at some point prior to its breakup, and this can have happened relatively early. However, the alternative possibility that the attested forms are really accusative singulars or (in the case of wagnijo etc.) other forms has to be kept in mind, especially considering that the Vimose Buckle has a form ansuz, casting doubt on the whole West Germanic business. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The earliest rune inscription HARJA is in the Finnish language
"Harja" (= brush, comb in modern Finnish) is not a Germanic word. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/harja - http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2636328

Suggesting that runes are in Germanic languages only, is not based on factual information nor probability but on mere biased speculation.

http://www.emersonkent.com/images/maps/europe_814.jpg

Northern Europe in and after the time of the first known runes was ruled by the Finns/Kvens, so it's only logical that runes were used - at least - to write the Finnish (Finnic/Finno-Ugric) language. Also, the word HARJA found on the Vimose Comb did exist in the Finnic/Finnish language already in 150-160 AD, but it did not exist as such in the Germanic languages.

The whole article must be rewritten if Wikipedia wants to be considered a reliable source of information. 91.155.236.125 (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "harja" was Common Germanic for "army": compare e.g. Anglo-Saxon "se here". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't. In the hypothetical Proto-German, only the word HARJAZ exists. Check here: http://books.google.com/books?id=Uk1vypV20sEC&pg=PA144&dq=harjaz+german&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6XSuUc7FDOGC4AS3-IDACg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg and here: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2636328.

The Vimose Comb reads HARJA, NOT HARJAZ. In Finnish HARJA means the thing you brush your hair with, so it's obvious the text on the Vimose Comb is in Finnish. 91.155.236.125 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The only thing that is obvious is that any statement in the article that the word engraved in runes on the Vimose comb is Finnish would need to be backed up by a reliable published source, and I cannot find any reliable sources that support this theory, whereas there are a number of reliable sources that indicate that the word is Germanic. BabelStone (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "The word HARJA is an old loan from Baltic, and corresponds on the loaning side to (e.g.) Lithuanian šerys 'bristle of a pig' and the Latvian plural form sari 'bristles, horsehairs, horse's mane; hair'. The meaning of an animal's bristles or horsehairs is the original one, but in Finnic, the same word also refers to the ridge of a roof."

Above a direct translation from Häkkinen's much-lauded etymological dictionary, p. 171. Kaisa Häkkinen: Nykysuomen etymologinen sanakirja, s. 935. Helsinki: WSOY, 2004. ISBN 951-0-27108-x.

No mention of a Germanic origin and indeed, such a word does not exist even in the hypothetical Proto-Germanic language. Only the word harjaZ may exist. (In Proto-Germanic names the first name element lost its -z ending during the combination of both name elements, for instance the words *harjaz and *wulfaz were not combined as *Harjazwulfaz but as *Harjawulfaz.) HARJA alone would have been an impossible word.

Would you kindly present the links you refer to, that prove my point wrong without a doubt? Thank you in advance. 91.155.236.125 (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Two sources supporting the theory that the text HARJA on the Vimose Comb denotes the object:

Kabell, Aage. "Harja. In: Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur, 102, 1973, 1-15." HARJA. Übersetzung: "das zu den Haaren gehörige (=Kamm)"

Seebold, Elmar. "Die sprachliche Deutung und Einordnung der archaischen Runeninschriften. In: Runische Schriftkultur in kontinental-skandinavischer und -angelsächsischer Wechselbeziehung. Internationales Symposium in der Werner-Reimers-Stiftung vom 24.-27. Juni 1992 inBad Homburg, (hg.) Düwel, Klaus. Berlin, New York 1994, 56-94." HARJA. Übersetzung: "den Kamm"

http://www.runenprojekt.uni-kiel.de/abfragen/standard/deutung2.asp?findno=20&ort=Vimose&objekt=Kamm  91.155.236.125 (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with connecting harja with the word for hair is that that word is not attested in Gothic, so the Proto-Germanic reconstruction is uncertain: It might have had /z/ instead of /r/. This is a real possibility as it would allow connecting the word with the Proto-Indo-European verb *kes- "to tidy, to comb". This is even more plausible for a word meaning "comb" as harja supposedly is. However, Proto-Germanic *hēzan (> Proto-Northwest-Germanic *hāza) "hair" or a putative *hazja- "comb" would hardly have been spelt with r in the 2nd century. In any case, it is unlikely that Finnish harja is a Germanic loanword; as explained above, it is probably borrowed from Baltic. But in that case, it would probably still have had the Proto-Finnic form *šarja at the time, making it additionally problematic to read the inscription as Finnic (Finnish didn't exist yet). In short, all these readings have problems, and Finnish is out of the question, with Finnic being hardly more plausible. The linguistically most satisfying interpretation is "army" (accusative singular), even if it's not as neat as "comb"; it may also be a name (of the owner, presumably), or an abbreviation of a name. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Marcomannic Runes
W.Grimm ("On german runes"/ "Über deutsche Runen") relates the term Markomannen to Hrabanus Maurus contemporary use for Nordalbingier. Grimms explanation mentions that this geographical term is to be seen from the situation of Fulda Monastery, which was like an outpost of the east frankish dominion, surrounded by so-called "Mark(s)" - boarder regions claimed by both sides, which are subjected to regularely military campaigns. I found that explanation very logical.--78.51.53.223 (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE IS SELF CONTRADICTING!
Introduction section, 4th paragraph, last sentence: "The Younger Futhark developed further into the Marcomannic runes, the Medieval runes (1100–1500 AD), and the Dalecarlian runes (around 1500–1800 AD)."

BUT: the chronology as suggested by the index contradicts this!:

2.3 "Marcomannic runes" (8th to 9th centuries) 2.4 Younger Futhark (9th to 11th centuries)

Which version is correct?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.84.48 (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone had incorrectly added Marcomannic runes to the intro, where it shouldn't be, not only because the chronology was wrong but also because it doesn't qualify as one of the best known runic alphabets. So I removed it. Thomas.W talk 19:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Epigraphic aspect
Hi, sourceless rank amateur here ... Concerning the continued use of runes after introduction of the latin alphabet, it seems reasonable/a man in the pub told me that while paper and ink were scarce and expensive, knives and wood chips were ubiquitous and free, which would give at least an economic explanation. And aren't the non-vertical strokes almost all diagonals precisely in order to allow easier carving in wood? Or did I miss something about that? T88.89.219.147 (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Why No Bluetooth?
Bluetooth is a Scandinavian invention whose symbol that exists on every modern electronic device is made from Runes. Should be here. 184.155.130.147 (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see Bind rune. BabelStone (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Bluetooth should be mentioned here.119.92.93.84 (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Help


הראש (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC) On your curtain? Is this some alleged "hate crime"? Since you are Jewish...

What language is it in?119.92.93.84 (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Boustrophedon
Were runes often inscribed so as to run left-to-right on one line and right-to-left on the following line? Runes might then be included in the Boustrophedon article. Kortoso (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Er, "yes" to your question as asked, and "also yes, but not quite so often" to your second sentence, the statement that seems like a logical deduction. While on some stones the alternate lines would run "backwards" with the letters upright ("true" boustrophedon), on other stones the second lines would run "inverted" — upside down — so, yes, right-to-left on the stone, but normally forward in relation to each other ("false" boustrophedon)... easily read if you turn either your head or the stone. (See p. 132 in "Reading runic inscriptions" of Runes and Germanic Linguistics by Elmer H. Antonsen; Walter de Gruyter, 2002.) – •Raven .talk 04:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Fuþorc vs Futhorc
Part of this article uses modern typography (Elder Futhark) and part medieval (Anglo-Saxon runes: "The fuþorc"). The article is written in modern English, and therefore ought to follow modern English conventions and use "th" in place or thorn or eth. As things stand it is confusing and unnecessarily complex for those unused to medieval texts. Do others agree before I go through using the "th" form? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * My recent edit to the section at issue was solely to add the pronunciation "futhorc" which by this point had been completely removed from the section (though the article's first paragraph mentions "futhorc or fuþorc"). I have no quarrel (no dog in the fight) about which word is used to actually discuss the topic throughout the section, as long as readers are told in the section how to pronounce it if it remains "fuþorc"... because they may get there by section links, bypassing the lead paragraph. – •Raven .talk 06:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about pronunciation and by implication legibility; that's why I suggest using the "th" form throughout. Clearly the thorn spelling needs to be introduced, but going back to WP:RF we must keep the article accessible to non-specialists.  I'll try and get on to this by the weekend. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

✅ Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Runes. 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/20070623082749/http://ariadne.uio.no/runenews/odmarune.htm to http://ariadne.uio.no/runenews/odmarune.htm

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) 19:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Futharken vs Runes
This is not the same, and Futharken should not be redirected to this article. Whilst runes are the letters used in Scandinavia, the alphabet for the runes is known as Futharken (or Futarken). Futarken is a later invention, the runes during their first 300-400 years of usage wasn't sorted in to an alphabet. Futharken is an invention from the times (approximately 1050-1150 AD) when the latin letters first were introduced to Scandinavia. Although not a valid source, this facebook page explains it rather well (in Swedish though) https://www.facebook.com/timetraveltourssweden/posts/runor-det-finns-flera-olika-runalfabeten-vilket-kanske-inte-%C3%A4r-j%C3%A4ttek%C3%A4nt-av-den-/1147447111957493/ (The Vikinger could read and write but their runes wasn't standardised, runes has also been used in central Europe but was replaced with latin letters earlier than farther north) Boeing720 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)