Talk:Svingerud Runestone

Article expansion
,, , , , , , , , , , ,  — I've started this stub for this remarkable find. Please expand as you like. I'll work on it now and then as time permits. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice, Bloodofox. I added information from the article by Øivind Gulliksen at the Museum of Cultural History. It's basically the same as the article from the Historical Museum, but slightly different, and there it is attributed to its author. Carlstak (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the headsup! The AP hadn't told me about this discovery. I don't think I can help, but will look in case I find anything useful that doesn't require audio :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Fascinating! Thank you!--Berig (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Additional stone fragments.
According to Brute Norse podcast and a university mailing list I'm on, archeologists on site found several smaller fragments with an additional inscription. Should the article be moved to "Svingerud Runestones" or similar to reflect this? Mårtensås (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am also unclear on how many objects we're discussing here. Maybe calling the article "Svingerud Inscriptions" would be better? Has there been an inventory published anywhere? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have information from a university mailing list I'm on that there were four other pieces of sandstone found apart from the large stone, with two of them carrying a Runic inscription. Only two stones are currently being displayed on the museum exhibit. RexCrudelissimus has taken photographs of both. The other one says ???do runo (the tops of the first three runes are broken, and so it's not possible to tell what they were), where the first word must be the 1st person singular past indicative of a weak verb, probably faihidō, ie “I painted”, and the second word is rune. This would also be the earliest attestation of that word, and the attested Germanic sentence, predating Gothic by two centuries. Mårtensås (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. It looks like we're still waiting on an WP:RS-compliant source on the 'rune' attestation so we can include it. I'm sure we'll have plenty we can use in the near future. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Kristel Zilmer (one of the leading researchers) gives information on it in this Twitter thread. Does that count? Mårtensås (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Language
Considering the age, we might consider it written in Proto-Germanic instead.--Berig (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Proto-Norse is the usual term for the language in Scandinavian runic inscriptions, not sure when the cut-off for "Proto-Germanic" is.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * True, you are indeed correct!--Berig (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe there was mention in some article or podcast with a member of the team investigating the find that the language of the stone is likely even before Proto-Norse, which would make it Proto-Northwest Germanic, ie the linguistic ancestor of English and German as well. Actually the late Elmer H. Antonsen argues in his book Runes and Germanic Linguistics that many of the oldest "Proto-Norse" runic inscriptions ought to be classed as this language. Indeed there is no evidence that the Germanic dialect continuum stretching from Norway to Denmark to central Germany had been broken at this time. Mårtensås (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that Antonsen is not entirely correct in this regard, because while the evidence for a PNWG stage is indisputable, there are early differences, sometimes subtle, for example in the development of the -ōn-stem declension between West Germanic and North Germanic, where Proto-Norse shows the North Germanic development already by the 5th century or so, early differences which indicate that PNWG unity broke up earlier than Antonsen implies, probably already before the turning of the eras. The Frienstedt comb appears to show an early West Germanic stage by c. 300, and a few show East Germanic characteristics, but the vast majority can be classed as North Germanic, even if most early inscriptions may not directly exhibit diagnostic features. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

List of inscriptions containing the futhark sequence
I've started a draft for a list of runic inscriptions featuring the futhark sequence. I invite you all to contribute here. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oldest runestone 20.jpg