Talk:Codex Runicus

Removed some text

The second half of the article, while it contained interesting information, seemed to have been written by someone for whom English is a second language. I've made some changes, which I've enumerated below along with some questions of my own.

1. I removed the parenthetical phrase "not here presented" because, of course, the text is presented here.
2. I rewrote the text that falls immediately before the transliteration, with the objective of rendering it more idiomatic while preserving the author's original intentions.
3. I removed:

Det Arnamagnæanske Haandskrift No 28, 8vo, Codex Runicus, udgivet i fotolitografisk Aftryk af Kommissionen for det Arnamagnæanske Legat (Kjøbenhavn, 1877). Johannes Brøndum-Nielsen and Svend Aakjær, Skånske lov, Danmarks gamle landskabslove, I (København, 1933), pp. 1–199

Since this is in Danish (I think), it looked out of place to say the least. It might be two source citations, but I'm just not sure. It was formatted as a regular paragraph.

I left in, but modified, the following:

The Codex Runicus has the signature AM 28 8vo and is stored in the Arnamagnæan Collection, part of the University of Copenhagen Faculty of Humanities, located in Copenhagen. (This looks like it may have something to do with the non-English paragraph I removed, above. Could someone verify?)

Could someone who better understands these things reword this so that it no longer uses the word "signature" in this context. I've looked it up, so I think I understand that the word, in this case, refers to a stamp that tells the binder or archivist what order the page comes in in relation to other documents in the collection. However, I'm not sure that's what it means, especially since, at least in the picture included, I have found no such stamp or mark disfiguring the page. In any case, it's a reference that I believe will be unclear to the majority of readers.

Also: The article doesn't say what language the text is in. I removed the sentence "the text is by n-gram simmilar to Swedish then to Finnish" since I'm not completely sure what that's supposed to mean. I suspect it means that n-gram techniques have been applied and suggest that the language is more similar to Swedish than to Finnish, but a couple of things bother me about my suspicion:

First, it implies that there may be some controversy as to whether the text is in Swedish or Finnish, but the article doesn't mention any such controversy.

Second, since I believe that Swedish and Finnish are completely unrelated languages (unless we count the inevitable lexical borrowing), it seems odd that people would argue over whether this text was written in Swedish or Finnish. I could imagine argument as to whether is was written in early Swedish or early Danish—but Swedish or Finnish?

1. 1. This is a law text in Old Danish. Skåne, now in Sweden, used to be Danish.
   2. The older maps show Sweden as a much smaller country than it is today:
   3. The Swedes expanded their territory, and consider this their heroic age.
   4. Not much chance for Denmark and Norway to get their lost regions back
   5. unless local democracy should wish so, possibly through future EU regulations.
   6. Who knows

Anyway, I've done the best I could with the knowledge I have. I hope someone who knows more will be able to take this and move ahead with it. I'm really curious to know more about this topic. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these are two source citations. Slightly reformatted:

• Det Arnamagnæanske Haandskrift No 28, 8vo, Codex Runicus, udgivet i fotolitografisk Aftryk af Kommissionen for det Arnamagnæanske Legat (1877). Kjøbenhavn.

• Brøndum-Nielsen, Johannes and Svend Aakjær (1933). Skånske lov, Danmarks gamle landskabslove, I. København. pp. 1–199

Haukur 23:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Haukur. Well done! I've tried to place the sources back into the article, but I'm not sure how much success I've had. I suspect that either the source information given was incomplete or I didn't do it right (or some cocktail of the two). I was hoping that, in doing this, I might learn how to use the citation templates. I made the assumption that these two items were books, but the information available for them leaves many of the fields in the template for citing books blank and that date at the beginning of the citation without an author's name just doesn't look right. I suppose it's possible that the first item is for the codex itself (judging by the "No 28, 8vo, Codex Runicus"), but I don't know what the whole title says, so I can't be sure. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 03:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the full text?

did somebody improved it ?

What ahppened to this werse:

One well known passage of the Skånske lov is:

Haui that Skanunga ærliki mææn, toco vithar oræth aldrigh ææn which may be roughly translated as: "Scanians are honourable men who hate injustice". it was here from 18:13, 5 January 2004

Thid somebody contested that toco vithar oræth mean in est Slavonic to viher oraiet = this what wind plught ?

I contesting quick decline (so many deletions!) ... do you comprehende just to verses from those pages ?

Nasz 08:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nasz, the Skåningestrofen is found in the margin of the manuscript AM 37 4to. I do not believe that you will be able to locate that particular verse on any leaf in the AM 28 8vo manuscript. About your last edit: You added a transliteration with a "Note 1" which states that some runes are "Nonstandard or no clear". On which scholarly work is your translation or transliteration based? Please note that Wiki editor's personal "translations", although fun to do, are not useable here, as they constitute original research and would fail the "Wikipedia:Verifiability" policy. The note states that some runes are No-standard and no clear. Non-standard compared to which standard? And what does "no clear" mean in this context? It states that question marks are used "If recognition between runes is fuzzy sign".) I've never seen this particular version of a transliteration before. I'm therefore going to temporarily make the transliteration invisible until the sources it relies on are made clear so that we can enter them in the reference section. Best wishes, Pia 23:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

i restored the page. Its not cleraly visible. This is not a translation, so cant be regarded with those policies. It just a quotation. The source is clearly visible. If you can make it beter. Also best whishes ! Nasz 02:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Temporarily removed section

I have removed the below text from the article for the time being, because the format is confusing (for a better format, see for example the article on Futhark, where the transliterations are paired with English translations). In addition, the text lacks references (see for example Illustreret dansk Litteraturhistorie for a pretty common version). Please help by reworking and sourcing this addition before reinsertion.

"The text on f 27r page picture consists of 14 lines. It is written in younger futhark alphabet then transliterated (See note 1 below) reads:

01 ae r : d? r a k? : o k th a : a l d? r i h : a r : u d? a n :

02 h a n : l oe s ae r : h a n : s u m : k u n u n g ; u/v i l ; o k ; Sæ

03 h i n s : d? r a k? n a : v r s n d? a r : u/v i l i a * S A rær man annær man mæþæn kunun-

04 R A R : M A N : A N N AE R : M A N : m a th a n ; k u n u n g ær innæn lændæs bøtæ fore sa

05 g : a r ; i n n ae n ; l ae n d? ae s : b oe d ae : f o r ae? ; s a r sum loh æræ :ok kunungi firiti-

06 r : s u m : l o h : ae r ae : o k ; k u n u n g i : f i r i d i uhu mark ok hinum ær sar fik f-

07 u h u : m a r k : i k h i n u m ; ae r ; s a r : f i l?? f iritiuhu mark fore friþbrut

08 i r i l i u h u : m a r k ; f o r ae? :f r i th b r u l *

09 H AE N D? AE R : M A N : M A N D? R K? : b oe d ae : ae? n : s a l

10 a f : s i n u : ae? h ?? o ; a l d? r ae : f oe r s d : o k : s i th

11 ae n : s a n k k ae? : h a n : s a m m ae n : f ae th r i ? i d/ae

12 f r ae n d? ad r ; s i n ae : o k : th ae? ; ae d l ae ; m a r h ae? ;

13 th ae? : ae r ae : ae r : ae? n ; s a l : s k u l u ; r? oe d ad : o k:

14 h u a d ? : d i l : h u a r s : th ae? r a : k u m b ae? a d

Note 1: Nonstandard or no clear characters marked by addition of ?. The text which is colored on source read is distinguished in transliteration as upper cases. Each transliterated rune character is separated by space. If recognition between runes is fuzzy sign / is used to separate possible transliteration. As in example: a/b mean a or b."

Pia 02:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What is confusing ? Nasz 02:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Ps did you change the entry to make it more confusing. It looks a bit changed;)

Nasz, no offense, but what is confusing is your extensive use of question marks and your lack of sources for your attempts at transliteration. The runes and the content of the manuscript appear "unclear" to you? Notice that most scholars have had no problems whatsoever with the transliteration of this manuscript. Also: the same text existed in older vernacular manuscripts that were not written in the runic alphabet. The transliteration of the Codex Runicus is therefore no mystery at all. It only appears that way when a reader is faced with your attempts. I am going to have to remove it again, I'm afraid. Sorry. Pia 05:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks very much like a self-made transliteration. I could find several problems just looking at the first line. If Nasz has made it himself, it falls under WP:OR.--Berig 05:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

yes i did it. It was unclear for me. shaould i mark it as clear? You can see it was quite good. It is not any scholarly work too look at symbol and find what it mean in the table. Quite well monky can do it or even more stupid software. Do not take the Or to the extreme othervise the wikipedia will be a colection of citation. I think that spending more time the symbols may be more corectly matched to the text. Anyway what was my error rate? Do you know when the cited page was updated? I have impresiaon, however im not shure, that when i made this transliteration, the qoutation page did not list the transliterated text and the text was posted later (but who care it?) tell me also why they do not post transliteration of all pages of the codex ? Why not even all text of the page? Why .. i have hipo! Also the 'scholarly' translation is laughable from any scieintific point of view. There should be presend leter by leter transliteration and word by word translation. Dont you think so ? For me (my POV) the text is quite well understandable from Slavonic language but if you prefer to deleet it and hide it from other it is ok with me i alredy know what it mean so it is not big intrest to me (however i my be interesterested in your knowledge What do you read therre??????). > Yes i did the transliteration . My question : so wahat ? Nasz 07:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

+when you see something incorect just change it? Isnt it the original idea of wikipedia ? Nasz 07:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Nasz, I have written scores of articles on runic inscriptions, but I stay clear of doing any transliterations or translations myself. Why? There is an old tradition of runology in Scandinavia and there are scholars who know most that is worth knowing about runes and Old Norse. Moreover, notable texts are covered by scores of publications. Trust me, there is little an individual wikipedia editor can do that has not been covered in sufficient detail before. Consequently, I do not advise any users (myself included) to do any transliterations or translations without taking them from secondary and tertiary sources, such as Rundata. IMHO, the perfect article on runic inscriptions contains both the original runic text and scholary transliterations, transcriptions and translations.--Berig 08:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

f 27 r

Correct it and fill the translated words under the question marks

• • • ok

The text on f 27r page picture consists of 14 lines. Is written in younger futhark alphabet, transliterated leter by leter and by words.

01 ae r : d? r a k? : o k th a : a l d? r i h : a r : u d? a n :
02 h a n : l oe s ae r : h a n : s u m : k u n u n g ; u/v i l ; o k ;
                                         king                    and

• • • yes it is a "D". The word is "DRAP" (murder)
    • the rune you've read as a "K" is not a K, but a "P"
    • This is standard for the common Scandinavian Medieval rune set.

03 h i n s : d? r a k? n a : v r s n d? a r : u/v i l i a * S A 
                                                            Sæ-  
                                                            wo-
***uiliae means "will". The runes do not distinguish between U and V.

• • • In KUNUNG it is a "U". In UILIAE it is a "V", in normal Danish usage.
    • The last letter of this line is AE-ligature, SAERER = (he) wounds.

04 R A R : M A N : A N N AE R : M A N : m a th a n ; k u n u n
   rær     man     annær        man     mæþæn        kunun- 
   unds    man     another      man     ?            kin-
  
05 g : a r ; i n n ae n ; l ae n d? ae s : b oe d ae : f o r ae? ; s a
   g   ær    innæn        lændæs           bøtæ        fore        sa 
   g         ?            province         ?           ?           ?

• • • It is a "D" again. "the king is within the land" ( kunung aer innen laendes).

06 r : s u m : l o h : ae r ae : o k ; k u n u n g i :  f i r i d i
   r   sum     loh     æræ       ok    kunungi          firiti-
   ?   sum?    ?       ?         and?  king Dec.        fort-

• • • yes, R. It is the last letter of SAR (wound).
    • LOH is also correct. It is "the law". But H is sometimes also used for a
    • sound that we today find closer to a G.

07 u h u : m a r k : o k : h i n u m : ae r : s a r : f i k : f
   uhu     mark      ok    hinum       ær     sar     fik     f-
   y       mark      and?  ?           ?      ?       ?       f-

• • • UHU is the last part of a word meaning "forty". (four times ten)
    • OK means "and". HINUM AER means "he who" (received the wound; dative ending -UM).
    • SAR is "wound" again.

08 i r i d i u h u : m a r k ; f o r ae? :f r i th b r u d *
   iritiuhu          mark      fore       friþbrut 
   orty              mark      ?          ?

• • • The fine to be paid is 40 marks for "breaking the peace".
    • BRUT is from "breaking" and FRITh is from "peace".

09 H AE N D? AE R : M A N : M A N D? R K? : b oe d ae : ae? n : s a l

• • • The letter you call "K?" is the "P" again.
    • The word is MANDRAP (man-killing) In the MS page there is an A missing.
    • So it says MANDRP, but should have been MANDRAP. No worry, obvious runes
    • are often dropped. The other word is B O-E T A-E. These are the "fines"
    • that are to be paid.

10 a f : s i n u : ae? h ?? o ; a l d? r ae : f oe r s d : o k : s i th
11 ae n : s a n k k ae? : h a n : s a m m ae n : f ae th r i ? i d/ae 
12 f r ae n d? ad r ; s i n ae : o k : th ae? ; ae d l ae ; m a r h ae? ;
13 th ae? : ae r ae : ae r : ae? n ; s a l : s k u l u ; r? oe d ad : o k:
14 h u a d ? : d i l : h u a r s : th ae? r a : k u m b ae? a d :

there is list of words. What mean each word in english? What in most closely related other languge ?

• Særær -wounded
• man -man
• annær -another
• man
• mæþæn - while
• kunung -king
• ær - is
• innæn - within
• lændæs - the land (the -s ending in laendaes indicates the Genitive CASUS)
• bøtæ - it is a verb that means "to pay fines".
• fore - for
• sar - wound
• sum - who, which
• loh - law
• æræ - from the verb "to be" : is

  ok - and

• kunungi - to the king (dative)
• firitiuhu - forty
• mark - mark, the standard monetary unit.
• ok -and
• hinum - dative form of "that one" (the man who)
• ær - particle
• sar - wound
• fik - preterite of the verb FA (to obtain)
• firitiuhu - forty (four times ten )
• mark - the coin again
• fore - for
• friþbrut - the breaking of the peace

Chow do you call this rune in this text ? If Younger F. then there are (minor) diferences. Yes, it is later than the younger futhark There are more runes here. (more than 16) This is the standard Scandinavian Medieval rune set.

Nasz 07:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC) <nasz

It is IMHO not necessary to add a huge chunk of text contained in an entire page of the codex. Above all, there is no reason whatsoever to have individual wikipedia editors do the transcription and the translation themselves. Thanks to Pia's rune guide anyone can make a try at "deciphering" the pictures of the codex, and if necessary consult the scholarly publications that describe and translate the text, for verification.--Berig 09:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • That is too much work for the average reader.
    • (to go and find the scholarly publications)
    • actually it is very simple. But the reader needs some
    • help to get started.
    • And you need to know Danish of course.
    • But then it is all GO. Even an 8-year old will be able
    • to read some of it, provided he/she know Danish, and is given
    • just a little bit of help. Thus, a transliterated sample page
    • is a very user-friendly thing to have.

Nasz, please stop posting your own transcriptins or transliterations. Very few people in the world are qualified for such tasks, and Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of venture. The only type of information our policy allows is information written by independent scholars. This is one of the foundations of the Wikipedia project, so Wikipedians are not allowed to make their own research and publish it here. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Not true. The late medieval inscriptions are more like scrabble or
    • cross word puzzles of the easy kind. That is because the language
    • did not change very much during the last 7oo years.

{Nb I did not enter any transcript you misused the word 'transcript'. Did you?

Do you have a source where all pages in this codex are transliterated and word by word translated? Is it interesting subject to you? It looks like the expert was exhausted and he stop after working few verses, (but there may be other reasons) les than half of page. To the task of reading you need just an alphabet table and few minutes of reading. Do you really consider reading text written in different alphabet a research?

• • • right. It isn't research. It is just like playing scrabble.

My point may be simplified if you tray to answer (yes/no) the following question:

• Is this codex written in alphabet?

• • • yes

• Is the alphabet published and well described?

• • • yes

• Is the manuscript page quit good visible?

• • • yes (except for 2 letters I think it was)

• Is it possible, looking at given rune, to find corresponding rune in a alphabet table?

• • • yes

• Do the same rune transliterate to the same letter?

• • • yes. except maybe the H which might sometimes be a G.
    • But it doesn't matter. The text is legible any way.

• Do you still consider reading a research (but transliteration is less than reading, reading is exponentially more complex)?

I do not insist that you have to transliterate the page, I just laughing at you when you label simple reading a complex research task. Also tens of alphabet, quite more odd than runes, are transliterated daily in Wikipedia. Do you want to portray the runes as a sort of magic writing only chosen can comprehend:) look what gives a simple search

• • • it seems that a lot of anglo people rever the runes as holy objects
    • not to be touched by the profane. But late runic writing is actually
    • just an interesting passtime that any one can engage in, who speaks the
    • language in question.

[1] nobody caled it OR so why in this particular case policy have an exception? Point me where the policy you invoke is written?

Nasz 00:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

toco vithar oræth Ne}

Transliteration is quite useful for the general reader, because we all read millions of Latin letters each year, and so our nervous system reads them by reflex without thinking in a split second. Runes we don't read so many each day. So Latin letters are quicker and gives a better survey. It is not entirely correct to say that the Skånske lov is written in "the younger futhark", because then one usually only thinks about the set of 16 Viking Age runes. There are more runes here, and this is what might be called the standard set of Medieval runes (1200-1300). The Skånske lov was also published with Latin letters around the same time as the runic version. Hence there is no problem knowing what Latin letters the runes signify: The standard Medieval runes had come to stand in a one to one correspondence with letters of the Latin alphabet.

—commented by Gangdagr (talk • contribs) 12:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Codex Runicus is by most scholars considered a nostalgic or revivalist use of runes

The Article says: "The Codex Runicus is by most scholars considered a nostalgic or revivalist use of runes"

On what grounds do these scholars make this assumption? Do they really believe that people writing this kind of stuff in those days concerned themselves with such modern notions as nostalgie or revivalism? Isn't it much more likely that these people really were busy preserving a heratige that in some maybe small parts of the country was still vivid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.243.40 (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Codex Runicus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19991003125530/http://www.hum.ku.dk/ami/kk28.html to http://www.hum.ku.dk/ami/kk28.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19991002053657/http://www.hum.ku.dk/ami/am28.html to http://www.hum.ku.dk/ami/am28.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)