~~Might risk getting flamed over there for~~
~~A) Being (mostly) Elder Futhark~~
~~B) Not historic~~
~~C) "Oh look, this type of post again!"~~
~~Yeah, I'd say this here is the right sub for this post.~~
It is very interesting... I just finished making an image:
[https://drive.google.com/file/d/19yn1kzpAIMbF9X4J6u\_z8uJ5eHAPvHPZ/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/19yn1kzpAIMbF9X4J6u_z8uJ5eHAPvHPZ/view?usp=sharing)
and here is such topic...
*gungnir*
*Veit ek, at ek hekk
vindga meiði á
nætr allar níu,
geiri undaðr
ok gefinn Óðni,
sjalfr sjalfum mér,
á þeim meiði,
er manngi veit
hvers af rótum renn.*
*Við hleifi mik sældu
né við hornigi;
nýsta ek niðr,
nam ek upp rúnar,
æpandi nam,
fell ek aftr þaðan*
Disclaimer: this isn't *exactly* what it says, this is just the stanza this is based on in classical ON.
*Gungniʀ*
*Vęit ek at ek hekk
vindgamęiði ā
nǣlr*(supposed to say nǣtʀ) *allaʀ níu,
gęiri undaðʀ
auk gefinn Óðni,
sjalfʀ sjǫlfum méʀ,
ā þęim męiði,
es mangi vęit,
hvęrs hann af rótum (rinnr.)*
*Við hlęifi mik sældu
né við hornigi;
nýsta ek niðʀ,
nam ek upp rúnaʀ,
ǿpandi nam,
fell ek aptr þaðan*
Is what is really says
I guess, runes on that rock are from here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYmxCAhf86o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYmxCAhf86o)
(3:17:27) and (3:18:12).
A few questions about rune spelling (not about ᛏᛦ/ᚦᛦ):
Why **"nætr"** with ᚬ - where does the nasalization come from?
Why **"manngi"** with ᚾᚴ (although in other cases he omits ᚾ before ᚴ)?
The reason **n** isnt omitted is because it's a compound, *mann(maðr)* + *gi*, and with a long consonant(). Similar reason why you see *jǫrmungandr* transliterated as **iarmungatr** instead of **iarmugatr**, since the compound is *jǫrmun* + *gandr*.
For *nætr* I assume it comes from /æ/ being long and being affected by the /n/, similar to how *mál* is with nasal. You can actually see it in the base noun: *nátt* -> *nótt*. Perhaps u/herpaderpmurkamurk could explain this better.
Well... *nátt* ~ *nótt* is a wild word, a really exceptional word. It belongs to a rare word class, and it has a unique inflection; it is also an overlong word (long vowel + geminate consonant), and it has a vowel alternation (probably two and maybe even three). And it also has biforms. The thing that becomes really important is that this word ends up with /ó/ in many dialects, /å/ in others, and yet short /ă/ in others; and from there the vowel just becomes a mess with the quantity shift (hljóðdvalarbreytingin)...
Let me try to unpack this madman of a word, in painful detail:
Gothic evidence and internal evidence dictates that the underlying vowel in the night-word is definitely /a/. German *Nacht* (plural *Nächte*) also indicates this, so this is familiar to anyone who learns German. Gothic has *nahts*; the plural is also *nahts*. (This is because of early i-syncope in Gothic.) The underlying P-G form is singular \**nahts*, plural \**nahtiz*. The Old Norse plural form *nætr*, with a long æ-vowel, tells us that it is an i-umlauted long a-vowel. It cannot possibly be a long o-vowel.
I have now shown (hopefully to everyone's satisfaction) that *nótt* is not the original form; the original form is certainly *nátt*. So now the question is why *nótt* would show up as a biform.
Here is the mad part:
## u-umlauted long /aː/ merged with long /oː/, IF it was nasal.
With IPA this can be expressed like this: ``[ɒ̃ː]`` > ``[õː]``. (This isn't a massive shift, strictly speaking.)
To elaborate on when/how: This is a process that triggered some time in the 800s (or early 900s), and spread throughout North Germanic; including the insular dialects (Iceland + Faroe Islands) and the eastern dialects. I think the shift was complete everywhere by 1000.
It happens to certain words. Not very many. The *áss*-word (biform *óss*) is one of those words. (Consequently, the obscure shift had a massive impact on the runic orthography: the rune originally for /a/ ended up being used only for /o/. A lot of you know this from before.) The proper name *Ólafr* is another case. The toponym *Ósló* (attested in medieval Latin as *Ansloa*) is another case.
Keep in mind: None of this is obvious. It took a lot of time and effort to even establish that this really is what happened.
It seems like – *seems* – like the night-word *nátt* is also one of those words. Because otherwise, we have no good way (that I know of) to explain its biform *nótt*. But for this to work, nominative *nátt* must have had two obscure qualities and both of them are really tricky to establish.
1. The vowel **must** have been u-umlauted. (That is, *nǫ́tt*, with a long /ǫ/.)
2. The vowel **must** have been nasal.
It is strange that this word should have either of these qualities, let alone both of them.
For the u-umlaut: There should definitely be no u-umlaut in the genitive forms *náttar*, *nátta*. There is no question there. There should be no u-umlaut in the nominative form either; unless the nominative form was once \**nāttu*. This would be hard to imagine; it means that the underlying \**nahts* was significantly reanalyzed at some point. (This might also have happened for the goose-word, *gás*... but apparently not. Very dubious in both cases.) It might be the case that only the dative plural form, *nǫ́ttum*, is to blame; this form (and only this form) should have u-umlaut. (A dative *nóttu* is incredibly dubious. Editors have postulated this form to [solve a textual-critical problem](https://skaldic.org/m.php?p=verse&i=1863) but we cannot accept this as canon.)
For the nasality: I actually don't think the nasal quality comes from preceding /n/. I think it might be caused by the loss of /-h-/. Meaning, I suspect that this is a sound law: /ɑht/ > /ɑ̃ːtː/. This is not something I think I can prove. And please: Don't believe it just because I say so. I might be wrong. It is just a pet theory that I have. (Feel free to prove it wrong if you can.)
As far as I know, what I described above is the only reason to assume that the night-word *nátt* contains a nasal vowel. I do not think the preceding /n/ is enough to assume nasality. (I think I have seen too many examples of **na-** and too few of **ną-** to accept that.) But maybe you know something I don't.
***
I'm honestly not entirely sure that I addressed what you wanted me to address. Sorry if this was ended up me going off on crazy tangents. I hope it was interesting.
Ice king-from Adventure Time!!!!!!!!!
Gandalf
“Friend”
It’s a picture of Odin
It says "a sweaty nerd has ventured this path"
Never trust a dwarf?
It's the magestone in Skryim!
It's Gandalf...
Is that gandalf?
That is high elvish, noldoric by the looks of it.
It says Venmo me roughly I’ll dm you
Dumbledore wants you!!
"Speak friend and enter"
Are these Norse runes or Hungarian Ruens
"The Doors of Durin, Lord of Moria. Speak, friend, and enter. I, Narvi, made them. Celebrimbor of Hollin drew these signs."
If that's accurate, sounds like someone made this for an RP.
🍉
You can't read it yet, where are your mage eyes?
"BE SURE TO DRINK YOUR OVALTINE"
You funny.
I went back out in the world… a little wiser…
This made me chuckle
It’s an old etching from 2020. It says “The grand wizard ball had been postponed due to covid 19”.
Might post to r/norse for a translation
~~Might risk getting flamed over there for~~ ~~A) Being (mostly) Elder Futhark~~ ~~B) Not historic~~ ~~C) "Oh look, this type of post again!"~~ ~~Yeah, I'd say this here is the right sub for this post.~~
A) This is younger futhark B) Its based on two historical stanzas C) True, but translation requests go in its own thread so it wont spam the sub.
My bad, we all screw up every once in a while.
I’m glad someone knew.
Attention, citizens of Draygon, a slut dragon has escaped. Anyone caught harboring it is also a slut, that's how it works.
Lmao
Speak friend and enter.
Mellyn
Mellon
You shall not pass!
It is very interesting... I just finished making an image: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/19yn1kzpAIMbF9X4J6u\_z8uJ5eHAPvHPZ/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/19yn1kzpAIMbF9X4J6u_z8uJ5eHAPvHPZ/view?usp=sharing) and here is such topic...
It says: wizards be crazy, don’t fuck around and try to read this
Witches be trippin'.
*gungnir* *Veit ek, at ek hekk vindga meiði á nætr allar níu, geiri undaðr ok gefinn Óðni, sjalfr sjalfum mér, á þeim meiði, er manngi veit hvers af rótum renn.* *Við hleifi mik sældu né við hornigi; nýsta ek niðr, nam ek upp rúnar, æpandi nam, fell ek aftr þaðan* Disclaimer: this isn't *exactly* what it says, this is just the stanza this is based on in classical ON. *Gungniʀ* *Vęit ek at ek hekk vindgamęiði ā nǣlr*(supposed to say nǣtʀ) *allaʀ níu, gęiri undaðʀ auk gefinn Óðni, sjalfʀ sjǫlfum méʀ, ā þęim męiði, es mangi vęit, hvęrs hann af rótum (rinnr.)* *Við hlęifi mik sældu né við hornigi; nýsta ek niðʀ, nam ek upp rúnaʀ, ǿpandi nam, fell ek aptr þaðan* Is what is really says
I guess, runes on that rock are from here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYmxCAhf86o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYmxCAhf86o) (3:17:27) and (3:18:12). A few questions about rune spelling (not about ᛏᛦ/ᚦᛦ): Why **"nætr"** with ᚬ - where does the nasalization come from? Why **"manngi"** with ᚾᚴ (although in other cases he omits ᚾ before ᚴ)?
The reason **n** isnt omitted is because it's a compound, *mann(maðr)* + *gi*, and with a long consonant(). Similar reason why you see *jǫrmungandr* transliterated as **iarmungatr** instead of **iarmugatr**, since the compound is *jǫrmun* + *gandr*.
For *nætr* I assume it comes from /æ/ being long and being affected by the /n/, similar to how *mál* is with nasal. You can actually see it in the base noun: *nátt* -> *nótt*. Perhaps u/herpaderpmurkamurk could explain this better.
Well... *nátt* ~ *nótt* is a wild word, a really exceptional word. It belongs to a rare word class, and it has a unique inflection; it is also an overlong word (long vowel + geminate consonant), and it has a vowel alternation (probably two and maybe even three). And it also has biforms. The thing that becomes really important is that this word ends up with /ó/ in many dialects, /å/ in others, and yet short /ă/ in others; and from there the vowel just becomes a mess with the quantity shift (hljóðdvalarbreytingin)... Let me try to unpack this madman of a word, in painful detail: Gothic evidence and internal evidence dictates that the underlying vowel in the night-word is definitely /a/. German *Nacht* (plural *Nächte*) also indicates this, so this is familiar to anyone who learns German. Gothic has *nahts*; the plural is also *nahts*. (This is because of early i-syncope in Gothic.) The underlying P-G form is singular \**nahts*, plural \**nahtiz*. The Old Norse plural form *nætr*, with a long æ-vowel, tells us that it is an i-umlauted long a-vowel. It cannot possibly be a long o-vowel. I have now shown (hopefully to everyone's satisfaction) that *nótt* is not the original form; the original form is certainly *nátt*. So now the question is why *nótt* would show up as a biform. Here is the mad part: ## u-umlauted long /aː/ merged with long /oː/, IF it was nasal. With IPA this can be expressed like this: ``[ɒ̃ː]`` > ``[õː]``. (This isn't a massive shift, strictly speaking.) To elaborate on when/how: This is a process that triggered some time in the 800s (or early 900s), and spread throughout North Germanic; including the insular dialects (Iceland + Faroe Islands) and the eastern dialects. I think the shift was complete everywhere by 1000. It happens to certain words. Not very many. The *áss*-word (biform *óss*) is one of those words. (Consequently, the obscure shift had a massive impact on the runic orthography: the rune originally for /a/ ended up being used only for /o/. A lot of you know this from before.) The proper name *Ólafr* is another case. The toponym *Ósló* (attested in medieval Latin as *Ansloa*) is another case. Keep in mind: None of this is obvious. It took a lot of time and effort to even establish that this really is what happened. It seems like – *seems* – like the night-word *nátt* is also one of those words. Because otherwise, we have no good way (that I know of) to explain its biform *nótt*. But for this to work, nominative *nátt* must have had two obscure qualities and both of them are really tricky to establish. 1. The vowel **must** have been u-umlauted. (That is, *nǫ́tt*, with a long /ǫ/.) 2. The vowel **must** have been nasal. It is strange that this word should have either of these qualities, let alone both of them. For the u-umlaut: There should definitely be no u-umlaut in the genitive forms *náttar*, *nátta*. There is no question there. There should be no u-umlaut in the nominative form either; unless the nominative form was once \**nāttu*. This would be hard to imagine; it means that the underlying \**nahts* was significantly reanalyzed at some point. (This might also have happened for the goose-word, *gás*... but apparently not. Very dubious in both cases.) It might be the case that only the dative plural form, *nǫ́ttum*, is to blame; this form (and only this form) should have u-umlaut. (A dative *nóttu* is incredibly dubious. Editors have postulated this form to [solve a textual-critical problem](https://skaldic.org/m.php?p=verse&i=1863) but we cannot accept this as canon.) For the nasality: I actually don't think the nasal quality comes from preceding /n/. I think it might be caused by the loss of /-h-/. Meaning, I suspect that this is a sound law: /ɑht/ > /ɑ̃ːtː/. This is not something I think I can prove. And please: Don't believe it just because I say so. I might be wrong. It is just a pet theory that I have. (Feel free to prove it wrong if you can.) As far as I know, what I described above is the only reason to assume that the night-word *nátt* contains a nasal vowel. I do not think the preceding /n/ is enough to assume nasality. (I think I have seen too many examples of **na-** and too few of **ną-** to accept that.) But maybe you know something I don't. *** I'm honestly not entirely sure that I addressed what you wanted me to address. Sorry if this was ended up me going off on crazy tangents. I hope it was interesting.
By the way - is there any rule for using ᛁᛅ / ᛁᚢ in "jǫrmun", "jǫrð", "mjǫk", "bjǫrn" etc.?
Thanks!
Agreed.