Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [norse_course] Re: futhark

Expand Messages
  • Eyja Bassadottir
    I m not entirely clear: are you saying that in my retelling of Liberman s lecture that he meant that the runes were not understood for their phonetic value?
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 8, 2009
      I'm not entirely clear: are you saying that in my retelling of Liberman's lecture that he meant that the runes were not understood for their phonetic value?  If so, I did not mean to convey that.  I don't remember Liberman remarking, nor concluded from what I heard, that they did not understand the phonetic values of the runes, just that they were not bound to how we would use them (purely for the phonetic value and nothing else).

      "...a magical symbol also incorporating names"

      I'm a little confused here as well.  Are you referring to the names of the runes ('ur', etc.?)  As I remember from the lecture, Liberman mentioned that the names used for the runes ('ur', etc.) are only documentable until post-Viking Age usage, and so he could not remark upon them or conclude when the names were developed.  He also mentioned that it's difficult to deduce when runes began to be used for magic, since the only documents that allude to this were produced in the 13th c. (the sagas) about 1100 or 1200 years after they were first created.  It could be that the magical use for the runes did not develop for some time.


      ~Eyja


      On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:15 PM, <asvardhrafn@...> wrote:


      I would disagree with the esteemed professor in that the futhark's well developed use as a magical symbol also incorporating names that use the sounds that he believe that the so called primitive Germanics only later fully understood the use of. I don't dispute thay they likely aquired the idea of writting from some one else. I would more likely point to western use of Chinese pictograms for their symbology rather than for their use in the construction of comound words. I fully understand the pictogram mwen (door) has linguistic uses like being the basis for the word lightning but would be more likely paint it by my door if I was into Taoism as a nod to the guardian spirits without needing to comprehend its full usage.

      Asvard

      Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network


      From: Eyja Bassadottir
      Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:42:18 -0500
      To: <norse_course@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: Re: [norse_course] Re: futhark

      On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:52 PM, llama_nom <600cell@...> wrote:


      The younger futhark (Viking Age runes) is an ambiguous writing system in many ways. Not only is vowel quantity (length) not marked, but vowels of several different qualities could be written with the same letter. In some systems, voiced stops weren't distinguished from voiceless stops. How will someone know if they're saying the word correctly? Often they won't know! In the era when the inscriptions were made, when people spoke the language, they'd know they were pronouncing a word right if they guessed rightly which word was intended, just as someone reading Arabic or Hebrew has to supply the vowels from their own knowledge. But there would still have been ambiguities. Although there are vowels in the futhark, there was no one fixed convention for how to spell words. Nowadays, we have to guess as best we can at what the writers meant.

      .


      Another thing that makes it ambiguous is that scholars still debate on which way the runes were read/written.  Depending on the orientation, you might get different meanings (especially with the ambiguity of the letters). 


      I recently listened to a lecture by Professor Anatoly Liberman on the runes ("One More Hopeless Attempt to Explain the Origin of the Runic Alphabet").  One of his points was that when runes appear (first inscription was around 1st or 2nd century CE -- I wrote down 1st in my notes but his handout said 2nd) -- and afterwards as they were used, the inscriptions were short and extremely uninteresting, and of course change depending on which way you read them.  There's even a spear that repeats the same rune over and over again (I believe 'ur') or some items even have the entire FUTHARK written out.  To our modern minds, this seems odd -- we use writing to produce sensical communication through sentences.  But Liberman made two points:

      1) that he believed that the runes were not used for their original purpose (i.e. used for magic (at least by the 13th c. when the sagas were written) but not made for that purpose) (ex. give a math textbook to a three year old and he'll devise several good uses for it -- a stepping stool, for instance -- but he doesn't use it for it's original purpose) [and thus not used for that sensical sentence construction we use it for],

      2) that if you look at all alphabets, a single letter is never wanted -- it's the sequence that's important ('v' just being a 'v', but 'vvvvvvvvvvvv' being a sequence and thus important, or even just the entire alphabet (in this case rune-set) produced) [and since the Scandinavians were not using the runes for our purpose, such a rune repeated would make sense to them, for whatever purpose they meant it for]

      In his thought process, the Scandinavians thought the runes were quaint and strange playthings, but coming from an entirely oral culture, not necessary (and thus playthings). 

      All of his theories are unprovable (as he said, the truth is probably lost to time -- if the truth was discoverable, it would have been found 200 years ago) -- the pitfall of etymology -- and is rife with landminds, (hence the title of his lecture).  He just believes, as any etymologist does, that his theory is the least wrong.


      Holliga,
      Eyja

    • asvardhrafn@yahoo.ca
      To answer yes that was what from your account seemed to be conveyed thanks for the clarification. As to documentation this is the same argument used against
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 8, 2009
        To answer yes that was what from your account seemed to be conveyed thanks for the clarification. As to documentation this is the same argument used against continuity of certain Celtic elements as well. Ie. Both were societies that the lore was all oral and the modern assumption is that if there isn't written record it can't have occurred this is also the divide between physical and linguistic anthropology. But this is the kind of thinking that caused Heinrich Schleiman to dig through the real Troy because was looking for the Troy written of by Homer who was likely not on hand for the battle in the first place. The fact the profs statement mention the problem of origins of the runes he would likely say there is no way to prove me wrong or right if one goes by the recorded documents.

        Asvard

        Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network


        From: Eyja Bassadottir
        Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:34:17 -0500
        To: <norse_course@yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: Re: [norse_course] Re: futhark

        I'm not entirely clear: are you saying that in my retelling of Liberman's lecture that he meant that the runes were not understood for their phonetic value?  If so, I did not mean to convey that.  I don't remember Liberman remarking, nor concluded from what I heard, that they did not understand the phonetic values of the runes, just that they were not bound to how we would use them (purely for the phonetic value and nothing else).

        "...a magical symbol also incorporating names"

        I'm a little confused here as well.  Are you referring to the names of the runes ('ur', etc.?)  As I remember from the lecture, Liberman mentioned that the names used for the runes ('ur', etc.) are only documentable until post-Viking Age usage, and so he could not remark upon them or conclude when the names were developed.  He also mentioned that it's difficult to deduce when runes began to be used for magic, since the only documents that allude to this were produced in the 13th c. (the sagas) about 1100 or 1200 years after they were first created.  It could be that the magical use for the runes did not develop for some time.


        ~Eyja


        On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:15 PM, <asvardhrafn@ yahoo.ca> wrote:


        I would disagree with the esteemed professor in that the futhark's well developed use as a magical symbol also incorporating names that use the sounds that he believe that the so called primitive Germanics only later fully understood the use of. I don't dispute thay they likely aquired the idea of writting from some one else. I would more likely point to western use of Chinese pictograms for their symbology rather than for their use in the construction of comound words. I fully understand the pictogram mwen (door) has linguistic uses like being the basis for the word lightning but would be more likely paint it by my door if I was into Taoism as a nod to the guardian spirits without needing to comprehend its full usage.

        Asvard

        Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network


        From: Eyja Bassadottir
        Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:42:18 -0500
        To: <norse_course@ yahoogroups. com>
        Subject: Re: [norse_course] Re: futhark

        On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:52 PM, llama_nom <600cell@.... co.uk> wrote:


        The younger futhark (Viking Age runes) is an ambiguous writing system in many ways. Not only is vowel quantity (length) not marked, but vowels of several different qualities could be written with the same letter. In some systems, voiced stops weren't distinguished from voiceless stops. How will someone know if they're saying the word correctly? Often they won't know! In the era when the inscriptions were made, when people spoke the language, they'd know they were pronouncing a word right if they guessed rightly which word was intended, just as someone reading Arabic or Hebrew has to supply the vowels from their own knowledge. But there would still have been ambiguities. Although there are vowels in the futhark, there was no one fixed convention for how to spell words. Nowadays, we have to guess as best we can at what the writers meant.

        .


        Another thing that makes it ambiguous is that scholars still debate on which way the runes were read/written.  Depending on the orientation, you might get different meanings (especially with the ambiguity of the letters). 


        I recently listened to a lecture by Professor Anatoly Liberman on the runes ("One More Hopeless Attempt to Explain the Origin of the Runic Alphabet").  One of his points was that when runes appear (first inscription was around 1st or 2nd century CE -- I wrote down 1st in my notes but his handout said 2nd) -- and afterwards as they were used, the inscriptions were short and extremely uninteresting, and of course change depending on which way you read them.  There's even a spear that repeats the same rune over and over again (I believe 'ur') or some items even have the entire FUTHARK written out.  To our modern minds, this seems odd -- we use writing to produce sensical communication through sentences.  But Liberman made two points:

        1) that he believed that the runes were not used for their original purpose (i.e. used for magic (at least by the 13th c. when the sagas were written) but not made for that purpose) (ex. give a math textbook to a three year old and he'll devise several good uses for it -- a stepping stool, for instance -- but he doesn't use it for it's original purpose) [and thus not used for that sensical sentence construction we use it for],

        2) that if you look at all alphabets, a single letter is never wanted -- it's the sequence that's important ('v' just being a 'v', but 'vvvvvvvvvvvv' being a sequence and thus important, or even just the entire alphabet (in this case rune-set) produced) [and since the Scandinavians were not using the runes for our purpose, such a rune repeated would make sense to them, for whatever purpose they meant it for]

        In his thought process, the Scandinavians thought the runes were quaint and strange playthings, but coming from an entirely oral culture, not necessary (and thus playthings). 

        All of his theories are unprovable (as he said, the truth is probably lost to time -- if the truth was discoverable, it would have been found 200 years ago) -- the pitfall of etymology -- and is rife with landminds, (hence the title of his lecture).  He just believes, as any etymologist does, that his theory is the least wrong.


        Holliga,
        Eyja

      • warcharger2000
        haven t been able to get to the computer; but i ve been wanting to post on this topic. i ve found that the whole v,w runes to be a interesting study. I have
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 12, 2009
          haven't been able to get to the computer; but i've been wanting to post on this topic. i've found that the whole v,w runes to be a interesting study. I have always wonder way in the elder futhark it is paired with the u... ?

          Hail to you all
          Uruzz Tyrburr

          --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, asvardhrafn@... wrote:
          >
          > To answer yes that was what from your account seemed to be conveyed thanks for the clarification. As to documentation this is the same argument used against continuity of certain Celtic elements as well. Ie. Both were societies that the lore was all oral and the modern assumption is that if there isn't written record it can't have occurred this is also the divide between physical and linguistic anthropology. But this is the kind of thinking that caused Heinrich Schleiman to dig through the real Troy because was looking for the Troy written of by Homer who was likely not on hand for the battle in the first place. The fact the profs statement mention the problem of origins of the runes he would likely say there is no way to prove me wrong or right if one goes by the recorded documents.
          >
          > Asvard
          > Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Eyja Bassadottir <eyja.gellir@...>
          >
          > Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:34:17
          > To: <norse_course@yahoogroups.com>
          > Subject: Re: [norse_course] Re: futhark
          >
          >
          > I'm not entirely clear: are you saying that in my retelling of Liberman's
          > lecture that he meant that the runes were not understood for their phonetic
          > value? If so, I did not mean to convey that. I don't remember Liberman
          > remarking, nor concluded from what I heard, that they did not understand the
          > phonetic values of the runes, just that they were not bound to how we would
          > use them (purely for the phonetic value and nothing else).
          >
          > "...a magical symbol also incorporating names"
          > >
          >
          > I'm a little confused here as well. Are you referring to the names of the
          > runes ('ur', etc.?) As I remember from the lecture, Liberman mentioned that
          > the names used for the runes ('ur', etc.) are only documentable until
          > post-Viking Age usage, and so he could not remark upon them or conclude when
          > the names were developed. He also mentioned that it's difficult to deduce *
          > when* runes began to be used for magic, since the only documents that allude
          > to this were produced in the 13th c. (the sagas) about 1100 or 1200 years
          > after they were first created. It could be that the magical use for the
          > runes did not develop for some time.
          >
          >
          > ~Eyja
          >
          >
          > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:15 PM, <asvardhrafn@...> wrote:
          >
          > >
          > >
          > > I would disagree with the esteemed professor in that the futhark's well
          > > developed use as a magical symbol also incorporating names that use the
          > > sounds that he believe that the so called primitive Germanics only later
          > > fully understood the use of. I don't dispute thay they likely aquired the
          > > idea of writting from some one else. I would more likely point to western
          > > use of Chinese pictograms for their symbology rather than for their use in
          > > the construction of comound words. I fully understand the pictogram mwen
          > > (door) has linguistic uses like being the basis for the word lightning but
          > > would be more likely paint it by my door if I was into Taoism as a nod to
          > > the guardian spirits without needing to comprehend its full usage.
          > >
          > > Asvard
          > >
          > > Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
          > >
          > > ------------------------------
          > > *From*: Eyja Bassadottir
          > > *Date*: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:42:18 -0500
          > > *To*: <norse_course@yahoogroups.com>
          > > *Subject*: Re: [norse_course] Re: futhark
          > >
          > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:52 PM, llama_nom <600cell@...>wrote:
          > >
          > >>
          > >> The younger futhark (Viking Age runes) is an ambiguous writing system in
          > >> many ways. Not only is vowel quantity (length) not marked, but vowels of
          > >> several different qualities could be written with the same letter. In some
          > >> systems, voiced stops weren't distinguished from voiceless stops. How will
          > >> someone know if they're saying the word correctly? Often they won't know! In
          > >> the era when the inscriptions were made, when people spoke the language,
          > >> they'd know they were pronouncing a word right if they guessed rightly which
          > >> word was intended, just as someone reading Arabic or Hebrew has to supply
          > >> the vowels from their own knowledge. But there would still have been
          > >> ambiguities. Although there are vowels in the futhark, there was no one
          > >> fixed convention for how to spell words. Nowadays, we have to guess as best
          > >> we can at what the writers meant.
          > >> .
          > >>
          > >>
          > > Another thing that makes it ambiguous is that scholars still debate on
          > > which way the runes were read/written. Depending on the orientation, you
          > > might get different meanings (especially with the ambiguity of the
          > > letters).
          > >
          > >
          > > I recently listened to a lecture by Professor Anatoly Liberman on the runes
          > > ("One More Hopeless Attempt to Explain the Origin of the Runic Alphabet").
          > > One of his points was that when runes appear (first inscription was around
          > > 1st or 2nd century CE -- I wrote down 1st in my notes but his handout said
          > > 2nd) -- and afterwards as they were used, the inscriptions were short and
          > > extremely uninteresting, and of course change depending on which way you
          > > read them. There's even a spear that repeats the same rune over and over
          > > again (I believe 'ur') or some items even have the entire FUTHARK written
          > > out. To our modern minds, this seems odd -- we use writing to produce
          > > sensical communication through sentences. But Liberman made two points:
          > >
          > > 1) that he believed that the runes were not used for their original purpose
          > > (i.e. used for magic (at least by the 13th c. when the sagas were written)
          > > but not *made* for that purpose) (ex. give a math textbook to a three year
          > > old and he'll devise several good uses for it -- a stepping stool, for
          > > instance -- but he doesn't use it for it's *original* purpose) [and thus
          > > not used for that sensical sentence construction we use it for],
          > >
          > > 2) that if you look at all alphabets, a single letter is never wanted --
          > > it's the *sequence *that's important ('v' just being a 'v', but
          > > 'vvvvvvvvvvvv' being a sequence and thus important, or even just the entire
          > > alphabet (in this case rune-set) produced) [and since the Scandinavians were
          > > not using the runes for our purpose, such a rune repeated would make sense
          > > to them, for whatever purpose they meant it for]
          > >
          > > In his thought process, the Scandinavians thought the runes were quaint and
          > > strange playthings, but coming from an entirely oral culture, not necessary
          > > (and thus playthings).
          > >
          > > All of his theories are unprovable (as he said, the truth is probably lost
          > > to time -- if the truth was discoverable, it would have been found 200 years
          > > ago) -- the pitfall of etymology -- and is rife with landminds, (hence the
          > > title of his lecture). He just believes, as any etymologist does, that his
          > > theory is the *least* wrong.
          > >
          > >
          > > Holliga,
          > > Eyja
          > >
          > >
          >
        • Scott
          Schleiman s discovery of the tomb of Agamemnon was more remarkable than his discovery of Troy. Many explorers had dug in Mycenae without success. When
          Message 4 of 13 , Apr 12, 2009

            Schleiman’s “discovery” of the tomb of Agamemnon was more remarkable than his “discovery” of Troy .

            Many explorers had dug in Mycenae without success.  When Schleiman got to Mycenae , he asked

            a local where he should start looking.  The local took him to the exact spot, saying everyone here

            knows where Agamemnon was buried but you’re the first to ask.  Schleiman dug down and found

            a rich tomb.  Whether it was Agamemnon or not, he unearthed the treasures of a great king of

            4500 years ago, as some have dated it.  And all he had to do was ask.

             

            Scott Catledge

            Professor Emeritus

             


            From: norse_course@yahoogroups.com [mailto: norse_course@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of warcharger2000
            Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 6:30 PM
            To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [norse_course] Re: futhark

             




            haven't been able to get to the computer; but i've been wanting to post on this topic. i've found that the whole v,w runes to be a interesting study. I have always wonder way in the elder futhark it is paired with the u... ?

            Hail to you all
            Uruzz Tyrburr

            --- In norse_course@ yahoogroups. com, asvardhrafn@ ... wrote:

            >
            > To answer yes that was what from your account seemed to be conveyed thanks
            for the clarification. As to documentation this is the same argument used against continuity of certain Celtic elements as well. Ie. Both were societies that the lore was all oral and the modern assumption is that if there isn't written record it can't have occurred this is also the divide between physical and linguistic anthropology. But this is the kind of thinking that caused Heinrich Schleiman to dig through the real Troy because was looking for the Troy written of by Homer who was likely not on hand for the battle in the first place. The fact the profs statement mention the problem of origins of the runes he would likely say there is no way to prove me wrong or right if one goes by the recorded documents.
            >
            > Asvard
            > Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Eyja Bassadottir <eyja.gellir@ ...>
            >
            > Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:34:17
            > To: <norse_course@ yahoogroups. com>
            > Subject: Re: [norse_course] Re: futhark
            >
            >
            > I'm not entirely clear: are you saying that in my retelling of Liberman's
            > lecture that he meant that the runes were not understood for their
            phonetic
            > value? If so, I did not mean to convey that. I don't remember Liberman
            > remarking, nor concluded from what I heard, that they did not understand
            the
            > phonetic values of the runes, just that they were not bound to how we
            would
            > use them (purely for the phonetic value and nothing else).
            >
            > "...a magical symbol also incorporating names"
            > >
            >
            > I'm a little confused here as well. Are you referring to the names of the
            > runes (' ur ',
            etc.?) As I remember from the lecture, Liberman mentioned that
            > the names used for the runes (' ur ',
            etc.) are only documentable until
            > post-Viking Age usage, and so he could not remark upon them or conclude
            when
            > the names were developed. He also mentioned that it's difficult to deduce
            *
            > when* runes began to be used for magic, since the only documents that
            allude
            > to this were produced in the 13th c. (the sagas) about 1100 or 1200 years
            > after they were first created. It could be that the magical use for the
            > runes did not develop for some time.
            >
            >
            > ~Eyja
            >
            >
            > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:15 PM, <asvardhrafn@ ...> wrote:
            >
            > >
            > >
            > > I would disagree with the esteemed professor in that the futhark's
            well
            > > developed use as a magical symbol also incorporating names that use
            the
            > > sounds that he believe that the so called primitive Germanics only
            later
            > > fully understood the use of. I don't dispute thay they likely aquired
            the
            > > idea of writting from some one else. I would more likely point to
            western
            > > use of Chinese pictograms for their symbology rather than for their
            use in
            > > the construction of comound words. I fully understand the pictogram
            mwen
            > > (door) has linguistic uses like being the basis for the word
            lightning but
            > > would be more likely paint it by my door if I was into Taoism as a
            nod to
            > > the guardian spirits without needing to comprehend its full usage.
            > >
            > > Asvard
            > >
            > > Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
            > >
            > > ------------ --------- ---------
            > > *From*: Eyja Bassadottir
            > > *Date*: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:42:18 -0500
            > > *To*: <norse_course@ yahoogroups. com>
            > > *Subject*: Re: [norse_course] Re: futhark
            > >
            > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:52 PM, llama_nom <600cell@... >wrote:
            > >
            > >>
            > >> The younger futhark (Viking Age runes) is an ambiguous writing
            system in
            > >> many ways. Not only is vowel quantity (length) not marked, but
            vowels of
            > >> several different qualities could be written with the same
            letter. In some
            > >> systems, voiced stops weren't distinguished from voiceless stops.
            How w ill
            > >> someone know if they're saying the word correctly? Often they won't
            know! In
            > >> the era when the inscriptions were made, when people spoke the
            language,
            > >> they'd know they were pronouncing a word right if they guessed
            rightly which
            > >> word was intended, just as someone reading Arabic or Hebrew has
            to supply
            > >> the vowels from their own knowledge. But there would st
            w:st="on">ill have been
            > >> ambiguities. Although there are vowels in the futhark, there was
            no one
            > >> fixed convention for how to spell words. Nowadays, we have to
            guess as best
            > >> we can at what the writers meant.
            > >> .
            > >>
            > >>
            > > Another thing that makes it ambiguous is that scholars st
            w:st="on">ill debate on
            > > which way the runes were read/written. Depending on the orientation,
            you
            > > might get different meanings (especially with the ambiguity of the
            > > letters).
            > >
            > >
            > > I recently listened to a lecture by Professor Anatoly Liberman on the
            runes
            > > ("One More Hopeless Attempt to Explain the Origin of the Runic
            Alphabet").
            > > One of his points was that when runes appear (first inscription was
            around
            > > 1st or 2nd century CE -- I wrote down 1st in my notes but his handout
            said
            > > 2nd) -- and afterwards as they were used, the inscriptions were short
            and
            > > extremely uninteresting, and of course change depending on which way
            you
            > > read them. There's even a spear that repeats the same rune over and
            over
            > > again (I believe ' ur ')
            or some items even have the entire FUTHARK written
            > > out. To our modern minds, this seems odd -- we use writing to produce
            > > sensical communication through sentences. But Liberman made two
            points:
            > >
            > > 1) that he believed that the runes were not used for their original
            purpose
            > > (i.e. used for magic (at least by the 13th c. when the sagas were
            written)
            > > but not *made* for that purpose) (ex. give a math textbook to a three
            year
            > > old and he'll devise several good uses for it -- a stepping stool,
            for
            > > instance -- but he doesn't use it for it's *original* purpose) [and
            thus
            > > not used for that sensical sentence construction we use it for],
            > >
            > > 2) that if you look at all alphabets, a single letter is never wanted
            --
            > > it's the *sequence *that's important ('v' just being a 'v', but
            > > 'vvvvvvvvvvvv' being a sequence and thus important, or even just the
            entire
            > > alphabet (in this case rune-set) produced) [and since the
            Scandinavians were
            > > not using the runes for our purpose, such a rune repeated would make
            sense
            > > to them, for whatever purpose they meant it for]
            > >
            > > In his thought process, the Scandinavians thought the runes were
            quaint and
            > > strange playthings, but coming from an entirely oral culture, not
            necessary
            > > (and thus playthings).
            > >
            > > All of his theories are unprovable (as he said, the truth is probably
            lost
            > > to time -- if the truth was discoverable, it would have been found
            200 years
            > > ago) -- the pitfall of etymology -- and is rife with landminds,
            (hence the
            > > title of his lecture). He just believes, as any etymologist does,
            that his
            > > theory is the *least* wrong.
            > >
            > >
            > > Holliga,
            > > Eyja
            > >
            > >
            >

          • Patti (Wilson)
            But he asked a LOCAL - that is what is important Not being to proud to ask - not being afraid of just seeming slightly ignorant of the facts. If this were to
            Message 5 of 13 , Apr 13, 2009
              But he asked a "LOCAL" - that is what is important
              Not being to proud to ask - not being afraid of just
              seeming slightly ignorant of the facts. If this were
              to be done more often - exactly as he did it - then
              more people might have the same success as
              Schleiman.
              Kveðja
              Patricia 
               
              -------Original Message-------
               
              From: Scott
              Date: 13/04/2009 14:47:05
              Subject: RE: [norse_course] Re: futhark
               

              Schleiman’s “discovery” of the tomb of Agamemnon was more remarkable than his “discovery” of Troy .

              Many explorers had dug in Mycenae without success.  When Schleiman got to Mycenae , he asked

              a local where he should start looking.  The local took him to the exact spot, saying everyone here

              knows where Agamemnon was buried but you’re the first to ask.  Schleiman dug down and found

              a rich tomb.  Whether it was Agamemnon or not, he unearthed the treasures of a great king of

              4500 years ago, as some have dated it.  And all he had to do was ask.

               

              Scott Catledge

              Professor Emeritus

               


              From: norse_course@yahoogroups.com [mailto: norse_course@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of warcharger2000
              Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 6:30 PM
              To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [norse_course] Re: futhark

               




              haven't been able to get to the computer; but i've been wanting to post on this topic. i've found that the whole v,w runes to be a interesting study. I have always wonder way in the elder futhark it is paired with the u... ?

              Hail to you all
              Uruzz Tyrburr

              --- In norse_course@ yahoogroups. com, asvardhrafn@ ... wrote:
              >
              > To answer yes that was what from your account seemed to be conveyed thanks for the clarification. As to documentation this is the same argument used against continuity of certain Celtic elements as well. Ie. Both were societies that the lore was all oral and the modern assumption is that if there isn't written record it can't have occurred this is also the divide between physical and linguistic anthropology. But this is the kind of thinking that caused Heinrich Schleiman to dig through the real Troy because was looking for the Troy written of by Homer who was likely not on hand for the battle in the first place. The fact the profs statement mention the problem of origins of the runes he would likely say there is no way to prove me wrong or right if one goes by the recorded documents.
              >
              > Asvard
              > Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Eyja Bassadottir <eyja.gellir@ ...>
              >
              > Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:34:17
              > To: <norse_course@ yahoogroups. com>
              > Subject: Re: [norse_course] Re: futhark
              >
              >
              > I'm not entirely clear: are you saying that in my retelling of Liberman's
              > lecture that he meant that the runes were not understood for their phonetic
              > value? If so, I did not mean to convey that. I don't remember Liberman
              > remarking, nor concluded from what I heard, that they did not understand the
              > phonetic values of the runes, just that they were not bound to how we would
              > use them (purely for the phonetic value and nothing else).
              >
              > "...a magical symbol also incorporating names"
              > >
              >
              > I'm a little confused here as well. Are you referring to the names of the
              > runes (' ur ', etc.?) As I remember from the lecture, Liberman mentioned that
              > the names used for the runes (' ur ', etc.) are only documentable until
              > post-Viking Age usage, and so he could not remark upon them or conclude when
              > the names were developed. He also mentioned that it's difficult to deduce *
              > when* runes began to be used for magic, since the only documents that allude
              > to this were produced in the 13th c. (the sagas) about 1100 or 1200 years
              > after they were first created. It could be that the magical use for the
              > runes did not develop for some time.
              >
              >
              > ~Eyja
              >
              >
              > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:15 PM, <asvardhrafn@ ...> wrote:
              >
              > >
              > >
              > > I would disagree with the esteemed professor in that the futhark's well
              > > developed use as a magical symbol also incorporating names that use the
              > > sounds that he believe that the so called primitive Germanics only later
              > > fully understood the use of. I don't dispute thay they likely aquired the
              > > idea of writting from some one else. I would more likely point to western
              > > use of Chinese pictograms for their symbology rather than for their use in
              > > the construction of comound words. I fully understand the pictogram mwen
              > > (door) has linguistic uses like being the basis for the word lightning but
              > > would be more likely paint it by my door if I was into Taoism as a nod to
              > > the guardian spirits without needing to comprehend its full usage.
              > >
              > > Asvard
              > >
              > > Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
              > >
              > > ------------ --------- ---------
              > > *From*: Eyja Bassadottir
              > > *Date*: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:42:18 -0500
              > > *To*: <norse_course@ yahoogroups. com>
              > > *Subject*: Re: [norse_course] Re: futhark
              > >
              > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:52 PM, llama_nom <600cell@... >wrote:
              > >
              > >>
              > >> The younger futhark (Viking Age runes) is an ambiguous writing system in
              > >> many ways. Not only is vowel quantity (length) not marked, but vowels of
              > >> several different qualities could be written with the same letter. In some
              > >> systems, voiced stops weren't distinguished from voiceless stops. How w ill
              > >> someone know if they're saying the word correctly? Often they won't know! In
              > >> the era when the inscriptions were made, when people spoke the language,
              > >> they'd know they were pronouncing a word right if they guessed rightly which
              > >> word was intended, just as someone reading Arabic or Hebrew has to supply
              > >> the vowels from their own knowledge. But there would st ill have been
              > >> ambiguities. Although there are vowels in the futhark, there was no one
              > >> fixed convention for how to spell words. Nowadays, we have to guess as best
              > >> we can at what the writers meant.
              > >> .
              > >>
              > >>
              > > Another thing that makes it ambiguous is that scholars st ill debate on
              > > which way the runes were read/written. Depending on the orientation, you
              > > might get different meanings (especially with the ambiguity of the
              > > letters).
              > >
              > >
              > > I recently listened to a lecture by Professor Anatoly Liberman on the runes
              > > ("One More Hopeless Attempt to Explain the Origin of the Runic Alphabet").
              > > One of his points was that when runes appear (first inscription was around
              > > 1st or 2nd century CE -- I wrote down 1st in my notes but his handout said
              > > 2nd) -- and afterwards as they were used, the inscriptions were short and
              > > extremely uninteresting, and of course change depending on which way you
              > > read them. There's even a spear that repeats the same rune over and over
              > > again (I believe ' ur ') or some items even have the entire FUTHARK written
              > > out. To our modern minds, this seems odd -- we use writing to produce
              > > sensical communication through sentences. But Liberman made two points:
              > >
              > > 1) that he believed that the runes were not used for their original purpose
              > > (i.e. used for magic (at least by the 13th c. when the sagas were written)
              > > but not *made* for that purpose) (ex. give a math textbook to a three year
              > > old and he'll devise several good uses for it -- a stepping stool, for
              > > instance -- but he doesn't use it for it's *original* purpose) [and thus
              > > not used for that sensical sentence construction we use it for],
              > >
              > > 2) that if you look at all alphabets, a single letter is never wanted --
              > > it's the *sequence *that's important ('v' just being a 'v', but
              > > 'vvvvvvvvvvvv' being a sequence and thus important, or even just the entire
              > > alphabet (in this case rune-set) produced) [and since the Scandinavians were
              > > not using the runes for our purpose, such a rune repeated would make sense
              > > to them, for whatever purpose they meant it for]
              > >
              > > In his thought process, the Scandinavians thought the runes were quaint and
              > > strange playthings, but coming from an entirely oral culture, not necessary
              > > (and thus playthings).
              > >
              > > All of his theories are unprovable (as he said, the truth is probably lost
              > > to time -- if the truth was discoverable, it would have been found 200 years
              > > ago) -- the pitfall of etymology -- and is rife with landminds, (hence the
              > > title of his lecture). He just believes, as any etymologist does, that his
              > > theory is the *least* wrong.
              > >
              > >
              > > Holliga,
              > > Eyja
              > >
              > >
              >

               
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.