Talk:Lóðurr

Norse history and culture Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

Lóðurr → Lodur – Use English. Jonathunder 10:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Oppose. There is no standard English form so we should use the native form as per Use English. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 06:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, strongly, and agree with what Haukurth says below and above...
Oppose, and for Heavens sake, follow Haukurth's suggestion below: discuss the naming convention, instead of proposing a move to some arbitrary "get rid of the funny dots" version. --Salleman 12:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ... --Cessator 13:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, this is taking on BC(E) proportions, with anti-diacritics-squads moving articles to score points without any involvement, or knowledge of the matter. This is unwikilike behaviour. As per Haukur, we need a solid policy for Old Norse names. dab (ᛏ) 14:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Firstly, this is a decision to made by the page's regular editors, not some outsiders looking to tidy up loose ends. At the very least we should wait their is a policy before we start ignoring the voices of those who are knowledgable. Secondly, the page is more professional as it is, we need only ensure that all synonymous terms redirect here, or to a disambig linking here. Sam Spade 20:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Haukurth. Uppland 12:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mark 06:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Support using the modern English alphabet. Quintusdecimus 21:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Dragons flight 00:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please let's discuss the naming standard for names from Norse mythology rather than each individual case. It's far too resource consuming this way. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 06:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. Sam Spade 20:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicised names

This gives the wrong impression that all the names listed are anglicised, and needs changing. Something saying "The name Lóðurr can be represented as Lóður, Lódurr, Lódur, Lóthurr, Lóthur, Lódhurr, Lódhur, Loðurr or Loður. Its anglicised representations are Lodurr, Lodur, Lothurr, Lothur, Lodhurr and Lodhur." This would remove the impression in the current sentence, that some of the names that use the non-English characters "ó" and "ð" are anglicised, which they are not. Mark 12:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes they are. The form 'Lódur', for example, is used as an anglicized form in John Lindow's Handbook on Norse Mythology. But in any case "represented or anglicized" surely covers all bases. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not!! That is John's version, but they still aren't fully anglicised. Mark 04:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that I recently discussed precisely this issue with Philip at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Norse mythology). - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources for Loke=Lodr

Þrymlur (Am 604 g, 4º) ca. 1300-1400. Same story as Þrymskviða who also survives in Scandinavia as Tor af havsgård, and Torekall. Þrymlur uses both Loke, loptr, & Lodr about the same person.

Relevant parts from the kvæde: 18. "Loki er jafnan leitum uanur, leikr hann þratt um beima, hann skal fara sem fugllinn suanr ok flivga j under heima."

19. Gumnum þotti granda fæst garpnum bragda drivga; fiadrham hafdi Loptr læst, Loke tok hatt at fliuga.

20. Flygr hann ut yfir aasa gard ein ueg lad sem geima; karlli jllt j kryppv vard, hann kemr j jotnna heima.

21. Fiolnes þion kom furdu dæll fram at landa bavgi; ute stod firi Odens þræll jotunin Þrymr aa havgi.

22. Liotr talar j lynde veill, leidadj ordum slettum: "Lodr kom þu hingat heill, huad hefr karll j frettum?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fylgi (talk • contribs) 07:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.heimskringla.no/wiki/%C3%9Erymlur_%28R%C3%ADmnasafn%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fylgi (talk • contribs) 06:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, in fact, agree - the rímur evidence is important and overlooked. I've been meaning to write something about that. But until something is published pointing this out we can unfortunately not include it in the article due to the WP:OR policy. Haukur (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Lördag (Saturday)

Bryonmorrigan reverted my deletion of the etymology of "Lördag" in Swedish with a reference to "my opinion". That lördag is a contraction of "lögardag" meaning "bathing day" is not my opinion. It is the etymology stated on the page for Saturday, albeit with a "citation needed" tag. On the Swedish page for "Lördag", there is a reference to the Swedish national encyclopedia (Nationalencyklopedin). Unless there are any references to another etymology added to this article I will remove the sentence again. PikeWake (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article where one of Sweden's most esteemed archaeologists (Gad Rausing) opines about the other entymological origins. [1]. I'd add it to the article now, but I'm in a bit of a hurry. --01:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting article! If I may make a suggestion: Since Rausing himself states that the mainstream etymology "...may be the correct interpretation..." it would probably be better to say that the Lóðurr origin of the word is an alternative explanation, and not state it as the only one, as it does now. PikeWake (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I know it needs working, which is why I added the "citation needed" tag. But it was only because of the previous editor's addition of the material that I actually did some digging and found the Gad Rausing article. I was hoping someone (who can read Swedish!) would add some more cites! --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Swedish and I have tried to find references, but none of the good sources for etymology in Swedish mention the Lóðurr theory. I'll try to ask some people who work with Swedish archaeology if they know if someone has continued Rausing's work. PikeWake (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]