Talk:Tune stone

Latest comment: 1 year 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