Talk:Elder Futhark

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meaning of runes[edit]

A friend of mine suggested this page, http://www.sunnyway.com/runes/meanings.html, with lengthier descriptions of what the runes mean. I am not sure if this is authentic or new age, but it may be useful to incorporate that information. Radiant_* 11:35, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

it's purely new age. That wouldn't speak against inclusion (although a specialized article on Runic divination may be warranted), but unfortunately, the page you link doesn't give a single reference. Of course we would need to cite whose divination system gives the "meanings" mentioned on the page. The authors mentioned in this article are Ralph Blumand Edred Thorsson, and if you get hold of their books, you could give an overview of their systems. dab (ᛏ) 12:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Being rather clueless in that area, I'll leave it to the more knowledgeable people. Radiant_* 08:54, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
The connection between the runic symbols and their "meanings" are entirely invented. Kortoso (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The table of Elder Futhark rune-names cites R.I. Page as its source, but Page does not mention Thor as a possibility for the meaning of *thurisaz (Page's sole suggested meaning is "giant, monster" - Reading the Past: Runes, p. 15). I know of no academic runologists that consider "Thor" a plausible reconstructed meaning for this rune. I suggest simply removing the "Thor" meaning from the table (I would do the edit myself if I knew how!) Arnarnef (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

inscription articles[edit]

seeing that Category:Runic inscriptions is getting a little bit out of hand, what about merging articles on inscriptions into larger categories, like Elder Futhark rune stones, Younger Futhark rune stones (with only the most notable examples keeping separate articles). If other material accumulates, we could also go for Runic bracteate inscriptions and Runic fibulae inscriptions or similar. dab (ᛏ) 13:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carpathes[edit]

I'm not quite sure, but i think that mentioned Carpathes are Carpathian Mountains. Can somebody proof this issue and if necessary - correct this link? Visor 23:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode vs images in recent edits[edit]

Recent edits have replaced Unicode characters with images, but only in the Elder Futhark section of this one article. Most other runic articles use either Unicode characters (typically with images in a sidebar), or Unicode characters wrapped in a {unicode} template.

Doing this three different ways is probably suboptimal. :-/ On the other hand, manually converting all the other runes on Wikipedia to images would be a fairly large effort. (Also, the current image syntax is fairly verbose--we could certainly come up with something more terse.)

Is there some way we could get the Unicode->image conversion to be performed by the Wiki software? Or is the current policy of using Unicode (nearly) everywhere fine as it is? emk 12:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's now 8 years later and this article is still using images for the characters, does anyone have any issue if I start to convert them to unicode? Thanks hrf (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harja[edit]

Does Harja really mean warrior ? In Modern Finnish language harja means comb. And since the inscription harja is written to comb I must conclude that harja means comb, not warrior.


Modern Finnish would be different from Old Finnish, and Old Finnish was not written in runes. Finnish isn't even an Indo-European language. -LC

There is very strong proto-germanic component in finnish language. There also is strong non-IE component in proto-germanic, which I'm not arguing is from finnish. -Me

no need to invoke Finnish. I confesse I had the same thought before: there is a West Germanic *hārja- "of hair" (obsolete English haire "cloth"). The Germanic for "hair" would be hærom. harja could be a perfectly regular Germanic word meaning "pertaining to the hair". I am sure that if you'd dig into the literature, you'll find a discussion of this (people have discussed every possible interpretation of these inscriptions over the decades), but for some reason it does not seem to have made it into mainstream opinion. dab (𒁳) 13:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strike that last bit, a translation "comb" is indeed a valid alternative interpretation: [1], suggested by:

  • Kabell, Aage. Harja, Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur, 102, 1973, 1-15. 1973
  • 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 in Bad Homburg, (hg.) Düwel, Klaus. Berlin, New York 1994 (=Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, 10), 56-94.

dab (𒁳) 13:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New guy with a question, no biting please...[edit]

I noticed that when I loaded this article that the pictures appeared to be covering some of the text in the Origins section. I was using Firefox 2.0.0.1, and I immediately tried opening the same page using an add-on to FF that lets you use the IE rendering engine, and that cleared the problem immediately. Question: Has anyone else noticed this phenomenon here or elsewhere on WP (I have...) and is not CSS designed and intended to preclude this very thing? Is it possible that some obscure FF setting in my own browser is allowing the text to be covered by the image? And is this even the correct forum for these questions, as they are not subject related, this is merely where I noticed the problem and decided to ask questions... Sorry if these should be elsewhere, and thanks in advance for any help proffered.Radiooperator 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am using Firefox, and I've seen similar effects, although not in this article. I think you should best enquire at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) where you'll be most likely to get a competent response. dab (𒁳) 09:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Misprint[edit]

I noticed under the "alphabet" section that the character listed elsewhere in the article as a translated "z" is listed as a capital "R". This is inconsistant, but I am not very knowledgable on this subject, so I won't change it. Thanks for any help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.237.195.219 (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

yes, this can be confusing. we should edit the article for consistency. The point is that it is transcribed z in Elder Futhark, but R in Younger Futhark. dab (𒁳) 09:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sowilo[edit]

I've noticed that the picture of the sowilo character has four lines, however I've noticed that in other sources the rune is much more commonly displayed with only three lines (like an s from the english alphabet without curves). But I'm a rookie, I might just be babbling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.77.12.103 (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The four-stroke variant is plausibly an older variant, in the older sources it's apparently more common. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 11:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern (Wiccan/neopagan) Interpretation[edit]

I've noticed that this article doesn't deal with the more modern (I don't think that these meanings are original uses) symbolic and divinatory uses of the runes. I don't feel capable enough to add this on to the article but I think that it is a very important aspect of the runes seeing as that is probably their most common use today (beyond translating ancient text).

We already have an article about runic divination if that's what you're asking. Add such infomation to that article, not the articless dealing with historical usage. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 11:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondence table[edit]

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 * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 11:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bracteates[edit]

"There are some 350 known Elder Futhark inscriptions (Fischer 2004:281). Lüthi (2004:321) identifies a total of approx. 81 known inscriptions from the South (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) and approx. 267 from Scandinavia. The precise numbers are debatable because of some suspected forgeries, and some disputed inscriptions (identification as "runes" vs. accidental scratches, simple ornaments or Latin letters). 133 Scandinavian inscriptions are on bracteates (compared to 2 from the South)"

These numbers are outdated. Visit this interesting page (University Of Kiel, Germany), please: http://www.runenprojekt.uni-kiel.de/default_eng.asp (Engish language) Under "List of instcriptions", "Open list of inscriptions" is a list of all runes found in Europe. In this list alone are 10 bracteates found in Germany, other countries south of Scandinavia not included. Also it maybe would be better to list bracteates based on countries, not just as found in Scandinavia and the rest of Europe. For example: 129 bracteates were found in Scandinavia. But 82 out of them alone in Denmark, Norway 10 and Sweden 37. These numbers makes bracteates mainly a Danish phenomenon, not an Scandinavian.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.132.23.116 (talk • contribs)

It is very questionable to say that bracteates are "mainly a Danish phenomenon, not a Scandinavian" at a time when there were no "Danes", but only a tribe carrying an early form of the name which lived in Skåne (nowadays in Sweden) and Zealand. With the same questionable local patriotic logic, runes are "mainly a Swedish phenomenon, not a Scandinavian".--Berig 10:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It is very questionable to say that bracteates are "mainly a Danish phenomenon, not a Scandinavian" at a time when there were no "Danes", but only a tribe carrying an early form of the name which lived in Skåne (nowadays in Sweden) and Zealand"
Yes, you are right. The borders were not there in the past. The source of the germanic tribes are assumed around Jutland, Denmark/Germany. Also the oldest runic artefacts were found there (comb of Vimose, Denmark about 160, or maybe the even older Meldorf fibula, Germany between 50 - 100.
"With the same questionable local patriotic logic, runes are "mainly a Swedish phenomenon, not a Scandinavian""
No, my intention is not local patriotism. And as you said, it is questionable to generalize or using new terms for this early time. So why do so? Why compare Scandinavia in a whole and the rest of Europe? Quote: "133 Scandinavian inscriptions are on bracteates (compared to 2 from the South), and 65 are on rune stones (no Southern example is extant). Southern inscriptions are predominantly on fibulae (43, compared to 15 in Scandinavia)"
yes, I suppose it would be fair to say that bracteates with runic instciptions are centered around Jutland. Obviously, "Denmark" here is supposed to mean simply "the territory of what is now Denmark". dab (𒁳) 23:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Spearhead of kovel.jpg[edit]

Image:Spearhead of kovel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J rune?[edit]

According to the picture on the right, the J rune is written one way, but when you read futher down, it's writen another way. So which way is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.38.47 (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spot the ...
I've removed the offending image as it was pointless considering we have two other areas where we graphically explain the alphabet elsewhere on the article. As for the direction of the rune, as you can see on the Vimose Comb to the left, it matches up with what we now have in the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading term[edit]

Under the section on Rune Names, there is a subsection that lists the common origins of the names, a portion of which follows.

Nature and environment: Sun, day, year, hail, ice, lake, water, birch, yew, pear, elk, aurochs, ear (of corn).

Although several cereals and grains were referred to as corn in the years before contact with the new world, Maize was not known until the 15th and early 16th century. Because many American readers associate the word corn only to the modern maize plant, it would be more clear to say ear (of grain).

--Contributor34567 (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True.--Berig (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"corn" as in "any cereal". The specification is just there because without context, "ear" is likely to be read as "ear". "ear of grain" may work too. Or "ear (cereal)", or something. --dab (𒁳) 18:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wait, which rune is the "ear" referring to anyway? I don't recall where this name came from atm. Not Ear (rune), I suppose? --dab (𒁳) 19:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Large I rune image[edit]

I'm using Google Chrome and it seems the png of the I rune is too huge, about 10 times the size of the rest of the images. Very weird. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is because of the genius of this edit. We cannot keep this article stable if people keep fiddling with the images it uses. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's of correct height, but too broad. Exasperating... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
probably just a cache issue. --dab (𒁳) 18:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map locations[edit]

The note for the map said "A map of the locations where Elder Futhark inscriptions have been found. " I changed this to "A map of some locations where Elder Futhark inscriptions have been found." I did this because, on the map, at least some locations are not marked: see Caistor-by-Norwich astragalus for an example of one which is not. This change was already made before but user Berig changed it back saying that "the original map does not purport to be a selection". First of all, this revision does not even contradict the previous one. The proposition that it marks some locations is consistent with a claim that it marks "the" locations. In fact, any map which marks the locations must mark some locations, assuming there are any at all, which there are in this case. So if the claim that the map marks the locations is acceptable, the claim that the map marks some locations must also be acceptable, assuming that acceptability is closed under logical implication, which is probably a good thing. And that the original map does not purport to be a selection as Berig claims does not affect whether the map marks some locations, so I don't think Berig's note is justification for reversion. However, justification for the change is as already given: The claim that it marks "the" locations can lead one to believe that these are the only locations where the inscriptions have been found, but this is contradicted by at least the case of the Caistor-by-Norwich astragalus.--Atethnekos (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that Caistor St. Edmund was off the original map. Unfortunately, this map seems just about to show it on the left border. The best idea would be to either crop the map or add a dot. The idea of the map, if it is to serve any purpose at all, is to show a comprehensive picture, not just "some selected" (at random) finds, which would be useless. I think what it is supposed to show is the distribution of the oldest inscriptions, but since it appears to show the Alemannic ones I think it includes the 6th century ones. Perhaps pre-600 or pre-550. To know more, we need to consult the source given, Jansson (1987) Runes in Sweden, p. 186. --dab (𒁳) 11:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

its turkish[edit]

its Turkish script, Old Turkic script. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.38.205 (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. The resemblance between Elder Futhark and Mediterranean scripts like the Latin and Greek alphabets is striking and cannot be a coincidence. The resemblance between Elder Futhark and Old Turkic script is superficial and unremarkable. Hurlebatte (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The old Turkic script dates to the 8th century, while the Elder Futhark dates as far back as the 1st century. That's a difference of 6 or 7 centuries, meaning the Elder Furthark, cannot be old Turkic. In the 8th century and later, Scandinavians did venture down the (modern day) Russian rivers and may have come into contact with people who brought the script to modern day Mongolia, which can explain the resemblance. There is no denying that there is a clear relationship between the two scripts.

Font[edit]

Where do you get the font for this script? - Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 22:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Runes[edit]

The Book of Runes, by Ralph Blum, is not a reliable source on the subject of the Elder Futhark. The book was given to me as a gift, so I have read the material, and am familiar with the contents. As I said at the template's edit summary, in the book it states, "he subsequently explored their origins and reinterpreted their meanings in terms appropriate for our times." These are not the actual meanings, they are meanings he "reinterpreted" for the purpose of using runes for divination. The author of the book gave runes new meanings, reorganized the futhark, and grouped them into five sections, as opposed to the three ætts. The book is not a reliable source, and this is why I reverted the edits. - SudoGhost 18:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bergakker inscription[edit]

Can we add the Bergakker inscription to the map? Machinarium (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest rune inscription HARJA is in the Finnish language[edit]

"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

Claiming that runes are in Germanic languages only, is not based on facts 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) 17:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia tries to be considered a reliable source of information by insisting that information in it is sourced to reliable sources, and is not just based on the opinion of individual editors. In the case of your additions relating to the word "Harja", we would need a reliable, published academic source that discusses the Finnish etymology of the word engraved in runes on the Vimose Comb in order to include it in the article. At present all we have is your speculation about the Finnish origins of runes based on the similarity between the modern Finnish word and a word engraved in runes nearly 2,000 years earlier. BabelStone (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a direct translation from Häkkinen's much-lauded etymological dictionary, p. 171 [1]:

"The (Finnish) 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."

You simply cannot find the word HARJA in the Proto-Germanic language. Only the word harjaZ existed. 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 did not exist.

I also believe that the Frienstedt Comb dating to the 3rd century AD, which has the text KABA, has Finnish written on it.

http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/date/2012/05/page/3 http://www.zbsa.eu/news/news-2012/oldest-evidence-of-westgermanic-language

It has been claimed that "this is the earliest proof of the West Germanic language", but the Proto-Germanic language did not have the word KAMBA or KABA. Only the word "kambaz" with Z existed.

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

In the case of KABA, it's accepted that the inscription denotes the object, so it's logical to assume the same about the Vimose Comb. Put all the info together and there's a good chance that both objects originate from an area where Finnic language was spoken. We should therefore absolutely not claim in the article that "runes were written exclusively in Germanic languages". The entire Fennoscandia was ruled by Finnish tribes since at least 100BC http://www.emersonkent.com/images/maps/europe_814.jpg so there's a much higher probability that many of the objects are actually in old Finnic language/s. 91.155.236.125 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic was not in the Proto-Germanic stage anymore in the 2nd century AD; dialectal differences already existed (ā instead of Proto-Germanic ē in the North/West Germanic branch). No need to invoke Finnish to explain the missing z; loss of word-final z (except in monosyllables) is a key characteristic of West Germanic. (Alternatively, the form harja might be an accusative. In any case, ka(m)ba is clearly West Germanic.) There's also a methodical error in the assumption that Finnic in the 2nd century AD was identical to Finnish in the 20th century AD. It was not. Most likely, harja (if it is indeed a Baltic loan) would still have started with š at the time, as it became (per Viitso) h only after the Proto-Finnic stage. If it is a Germanic loan, it is not at all certain that it (and similarly kampa) were already present in Finnic; they can have been borrowed later. Again, Finnish (despite its general conservativity) has not stayed the same for 2000 years, either, and the assumption that you can simply use your native language and interpret ancient inscriptions with it is a common lay mistake that annoys real linguists. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate that you took the time out to point someone here in the right direction, I don't think that we should be humoring nonsense like this ("Northern Europe in and after the time of the first known runes was ruled by the Finns", etc.). It'll just go on. This should all just be deleted under WP:OR and WP:FORUM—Wikipedia isn't a forum for this sort of nonsense. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A better solution in my opinion would be to hide/hat/collapse this section. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kaisa Häkkinen: Nykysuomen etymologinen sanakirja, s. 935. Helsinki: WSOY, 2004. ISBN 951-0-27108-x Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: invalid character

Based on Italic script/Latin alphabet[edit]

I looked over the futhark runes and compared them to the iberian runes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_scripts) which dates back to 4th century BCE. I found 14 of the runes where in common (i.e. no variation in form) and a further 5 runes which only required minor alterations to the form: either rotating or change the slanting of a stroke or in the case of the "n" rune, change from a round shape to a rectangular shape.

Based on this, I do not understand why some even try to speculate that the runes should be based on the italic script and certainly not on the Latin alphabet. A comparison of the italic script only revealed 5 runes, which where identical and 3 more which I would accept as being variations based on slanting or rotation. The Latin alphabet has virtually nothing in common with the elder futhark; with only 8 runes/letters which could be said to be in common. The archaic Latin alphabet 6 runes which could be said to be in common with the elder futhark. All the common runes and letters in the italic/Latin alphabets have similar shapes.

I realize that the claim is sourced, but frankly, I doubt that a new study of the runes would come to same conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.130.79.38 (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Ingwaz variant[edit]

The table lists ᛝ as a variant of ᛜ, but are there any sources on it being used with the Elder Futhark at all? I know it was used in the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc, but I can't find any sources where it appears in Elder Futhark writings. 88.90.166.164 (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know a lot about the Elder Futhark, but a bit of research did not produce a clear answer to this question. I'm not finding any authoritative source that shows the ᛝ variant as part of the Elder Futhark. The table in this article comes from Template:Elder Futhark, and the variant already appeared in the first version of the template, created 27 Aug 2008 by @Dbachmann: who still appears to be active. Dbachmann, can you shed any light on this? CodeTalker (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since ᛝ Ing is basically two X Gyfus stacked, I'd speculate the quick-and-hasty way to draw an NG was to make a bindrune of two Gs. – •Raven  .talk 09:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent [bracket] use in 'Description'[edit]

At the beginning of this section [brackets] are used to offset phonetic descriptions or IPA. In the table, the meaning is unclear. (Perhaps it is some linguistics use I'm unfamiliar with, but still it needs explanation.) I have not tagged with [clarify] since I think that would damage the table. Thank you, Laguna CA (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The brackets mean that there are missing runes that can be securely identified. It is the conventional way of showing it.--Berig (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've added a clarification for non-linguists. Note that "securely" in US English, at least, would tend to imply "locked" or "encrypted" more than "academically well established". Still, correct my note as you wish. Laguna CA (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier [z] into ON /r/[edit]

I don't know why this sentence "z was Proto-Germanic [z], and evolved into Proto-Norse /r₂/ and is also transliterated as ʀ" has a little subscript 2 under the r... The rhotacism of (pre-)Runic /z/ merged it with the /r/ and thus there was no /r1/ and /r2/. (See Krause 1971: 45; Ringe 2014: 82; etc.) Does whoever wrote that have a source that indicates the /r/ < /z/ is differentiated from the inherited /r/? Vindafarna (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page on Old Norse says that /r2/ was preserved in runic Old East Norse. I haven't seen the specific evidence, but it seems that the ᛦ rune is more consistently used in these positions. Cynemund (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ei(h)waz[edit]

This article claims this rune represents /æː/, but the Eihwaz article gives an /iː/ sound for the rune. Cynemund (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elder_Futhark&oldid=1195681892"