Talk:Spirit Pond runestones

Any translation?
Anyone having a link to the supposed translations of these stones? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! And, where is the text in the original language (with Latin characters), and an approximate translations of it? Granted most serious researchers believe this is a (fairly modern) hoax, but despite numerous links in the article, this absence of textual material is quite revealing. --Sparviere (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I did find the supposed translation. It's in the Carlson reference. . I've only done a transliteration of the first lines, and I have to say Carlsons translation seems to rely an a lot of fantasy. She gets "sikatumodin kilsa soå" to be "See- pay heed to (this)—Odin cries" which of course has no resemblence to each other, means that the name "odin" has moved to a different position in the sentence, and that the inscriber apparently has put the word separators consistenly wrong, which seems unlikely. And it just goes on like that. The next line is "17 did haladir miba?bad" which she translates to "To see seventeen dead—praise them". A hint here: English is a germanic language. Words generally come on the same order. If Odin is in the middle of a line, he should be in the middle of the translation. If teher are no words before the numbers 1 and 7, there should be no words before numebr 1 and 7 in the translation. Next hint: The Þ rune indeed can stand for d, ð and þ, and the I rune could be both i and e. So þiþ could be transliterated as ded. The problem with that? The old norse word for dead isn't "ded". It's "dauðr". It should say not 1 7 (because thats decimal, and those ain't decimal runes) it should say 10 7, so make seventeen. So "17 ded" is nonsense. "10 7 dadr" is what it should have said. The "tranlsation" is complete and utter fantasy. Now, if you can get that into the article without being POV and having original research, I'd be very happy. I can't. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Carlson and NEARA aren't reliable sources for anything but their opinions. Carlson is often wrong. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have prepared a transcription. Must just find some way to publish it somewhere. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)