Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a256dabf2a2b07d6

Jump to content

Talk:Tune stone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Vindafarna in topic The interpretation of Wiwaz is incorrect

Ottar Grønvik interpretation

[edit]

Article needs a discussion of the Ottar Grønvik interpretation regarding the funeral feast. There is a listing of his interpretation of the final section of the runic text as "Three daughters made a good funeral feast as the best loved of the inheritors" in The Norsemen in the Viking Age at page 50, but someone familiar with his text needs to provide Grønvik's interpretation for the article. See the note on page 53 of Norwegian Rrunes and Runic Inscriptions which discusses articles and books regarding Grønvik's interpretation of the Tune stone. Deanlaw (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Runic letters

[edit]

Could someone please add the inscription as it appears on the stone, in Runic? Thank you! CodeCat (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

The interpretation of Wiwaz is incorrect

[edit]

Guys, the way that line is written is intentionally misleading in that it cites Antonsen 2002:126-7 for the interpretation of Wiwaz (which it doesn't) and Worduride (which it does). Antonsen specifically doesn't remark on Wiwaz because it's obscure. Moreover, it cannot be derived from the PIE root *h1wegwh- because it has an i/ī in Wiwaz (Runic i < PIE *i, Runic ī < PIE *ei or *iH. There's no *i in the root and thus it can't resolve to Wiwaz. Furthermore, there wouldn't be a loss of occlusion in the labiovelar, so we'd expect a Runic *wegwaz or vel. sim. I will add a citation needed for the Wiwaz interpretation. Vindafarna (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Vindafarna (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply