DOCSLIB.ORG

Runor Som Resurs. Vikingatida Skriftkultur I Uppland Och Södermanland. (Runes As a Resource

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Runor Som Resurs. Vikingatida Skriftkultur I Uppland Och Södermanland. (Runes As a Resource Runrön Runologiska bidrag utgivna av Institutionen för nordiska språk vid Uppsala universitet 20 Runrön Runologiska bidrag utgivna av Institutionen för nordiska språk vid Uppsala universitet 20 Marco Bianchi RUNOR SOM RESURS Vikingatida skriftkultur i Uppland och Södermanland Mit einer deutschen Zusammenfassung RUNEN ALS RESSOURCE Wikingerzeitliche Schriftkultur in Uppland und Södermanland Institutionen för nordiska språk Uppsala universitet 2010 Akademisk avhandling som för avläggande av filosofie doktorsexamen i nordiska språk vid Upp sala universitet kommer att offentligt försvaras i Sal IX, Universitetshuset, Uppsala, lör­ dagen den 22 maj 2010, kl. 10.15. Disputationen sker på norska och svenska. Abstract Bianchi, Marco, 2010: Runor som resurs. Vikingatida skriftkultur i Uppland och Södermanland. (Runes as a resource. Viking Age written culture in Uppland and Södermanland.) Runrön. Runologiska bidrag utgivna av Institutionen för nordiska språk vid Uppsala universitet 20. 278 pp. Uppsala. ISSN 1100­1690, ISBN 978­91­506­2126­6. The Viking Age rune­carvers and their readers used runes as a semiotic resource to convey and structure the messages on rune­stones. An analysis of the ways in which this resource is used together with other resources gives us a deeper insight into the relationship between writers and read ers and into the written culture in which the rune­stones were produced. The present study treats runic carvings as multimodal texts in which different semiotic modes produce meaning by visual and verbal means. The roles played by runes in such texts are stud ied from three different perspectives. The empirical study in chapter 3 investigates how the verbal messages of the inscriptions interrelate with ornamental compositions. The most important convention found is that runic inscriptions usually start in the lower left part of the ornamental band in which they are inscribed. A second result is that there is a certain cor rel ation between the visual and syntactic structure of runic texts. In chapter 4, Söderman­ landic inscriptions employing more than one writing system are investigated. These carvings can be tied to a context of high social ambition in which at least two different, socially stratified discourses are expressed by means of the runes as a visual semiotic mode. Chapter 5 is devoted to non­lexical inscriptions, showing that such carvings are indeed runic texts des pite their lack of verbal message. Different types of readers can use runic resources in different ways. Firstly, runes carry meaning independent of any verbal message, giving them significance even to illiterate read­ ers. Secondly, literate readers can appreciate certain conventions of runic composition and, thirdly, one and the same runic text can be part of different discourses and hence be aimed at different kinds of readers. Keywords: runes, runic inscriptions, rune­stones, Viking Age, rune­stone custom, rune­carver, runology, literacy, illiteracy, non­lexicality, visual semiotics, multimodality, sociosemiotics, written culture. Marco Bianchi, Department of Scandinavian Languages, Uppsala University, Box 527, SE­ 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden. © Marco Bianchi 2010 Sättning: Marco Bianchi Fotografi på skyddsomslaget: Sö 367 Släbro. Marco Bianchi, 2008. ISSN 1100­1690 ISBN 978­91­506­2126­6 urn:nbn:se:uu:diva­urn:121586 http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva­121586 Printed by Edita, Västerås, 2010 Innehåll Förord ............................................................................................................ 11 1. Inledning ................................................................................................... 13 1.1. Disposition ......................................................................................... 15 1.2. Syfte och metod ................................................................................ 16 1.3. Materialurval, translitterering och normalisering ...................... 19 2. Den multimodala runstenen ................................................................... 21 2.1. Runstenar i tiden: runor och senvikingatida mentalitet ............ 22 2.2. Runacy och literacy .......................................................................... 25 2.3. Teoretisk bakgrund .......................................................................... 29 2.3.1. Fundamental osäkerhet ............................................................ 29 2.3.2. Medial och konceptuell skriftlighet – om skriftkultur .......... 31 2.3.3. Sagt om läsaren .......................................................................... 34 2.3.4. Runtexten .................................................................................... 38 2.3.5. Vidgade runtexter ...................................................................... 42 2.3.6. Modaliteter och metafunktioner .............................................. 44 2.3.7. Multimodala strata: diskurs, design och produktion ............. 45 2.4. Begrepp, frågeställning och delundersökningar ......................... 48 3. Runorna och slingan ................................................................................ 52 3.1. Inledning ............................................................................................ 52 3.2. Frågeställning .................................................................................. 54 3.3. Materialurval .................................................................................... 56 3.4. Materialinsamling ............................................................................ 58 3.4.1. Slinguppläggning ........................................................................ 61 3.4.2. Placeringen av rundjurets huvud ............................................ 67 3.4.3. Placeringen av runinskriften .................................................... 67 3.4.4. Relativa mot absoluta positionsbeteckningar ........................ 68 3.4.5. Den syntaktiska strukturen ..................................................... 70 3.5. Textstart och textflöde .................................................................... 73 3.5.1. Textstart i A­slingorna .............................................................. 73 3.5.2. Några ristare .............................................................................. 78 6 3.5.3. Textflöde i B­slingorna .............................................................. 80 3.6. Språket och slingorna ...................................................................... 85 3.6.1. Slingorna och syntaxen: B­slingorna ....................................... 85 3.6.2. Visuella skriftenheter och formler ........................................... 90 3.6.2.1. Formlernas antal och fördelning ........................................ 91 3.6.2.2. Formlernas visuella och språkliga struktur ..................... 91 3.6.2.3. De visuella skriftenheterna ................................................ 95 3.7. Den multimodale Öpir ..................................................................... 100 3.7.1. U 922 – språkligt eller visuellt kaos? ....................................... 105 3.8. Avslutning ......................................................................................... 109 3.8.1. Runorna, slingan och senvikingatida skriftkultur ................ 109 3.8.2. Sammanfattning ......................................................................... 111 4. Runornas visualitet – variation av skriftsystem i Södermanland .... 115 4.1. Terminologi ....................................................................................... 117 4.2. Inskrifter med avvikande skriftsystem ........................................ 118 4.2.1. Rönö hd ........................................................................................ 119 4.2.2. Jönåkers hd ................................................................................. 136 4.2.3. Öknebo hd .................................................................................... 139 4.2.4. Österrekarne hd ......................................................................... 140 4.3. Skriftsystemen i Södermanland – och utanför ............................. 141 4.3.1. Koordinatrunor ........................................................................... 141 4.3.2. Runkryss och samstavsrunor ................................................... 142 4.3.3. Ett stavlöst grafematiskt system? .......................................... 144 4.3.4. Runvarianter i ett senvikingatida skriftkontinuum ............. 149 4.4. Visuella och språkliga uttrycksmedel ........................................... 151 4.4.1. »Traen» och Järnagruppen ....................................................... 152 4.4.2. Vad skrivs med avvikande skriftsystem? ............................... 155 4.4.3. Tägnar, ansikten och skepp – spår av en visuell grammatik 156 4.5. Avslutning ......................................................................................... 162 4.5.1. Runornas visualitet och senvikingatida skriftkultur ............ 162 4.5.2. Sammanfattning ......................................................................... 163 5. »Runkunnig, men knappast språkkunnig» – icke­lexikala inskrifter ................................................................................................... 165 5.1. Inledning ............................................................................................ 165 5.1.1. Frågeställning ...........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Herjans Dísir: Valkyrjur, Supernatural Femininities, and Elite Warrior Culture in the Late Pre-Christian Iron Age
    Herjans dísir: Valkyrjur, Supernatural Femininities, and Elite Warrior Culture in the Late Pre-Christian Iron Age Luke John Murphy Lokaverkefni til MA–gráðu í Norrænni trú Félagsvísindasvið Herjans dísir: Valkyrjur, Supernatural Femininities, and Elite Warrior Culture in the Late Pre-Christian Iron Age Luke John Murphy Lokaverkefni til MA–gráðu í Norrænni trú Leiðbeinandi: Terry Gunnell Félags- og mannvísindadeild Félagsvísindasvið Háskóla Íslands 2013 Ritgerð þessi er lokaverkefni til MA–gráðu í Norrænni Trú og er óheimilt að afrita ritgerðina á nokkurn hátt nema með leyfi rétthafa. © Luke John Murphy, 2013 Reykjavík, Ísland 2013 Luke John Murphy MA in Old Nordic Religions: Thesis Kennitala: 090187-2019 Spring 2013 ABSTRACT Herjans dísir: Valkyrjur, Supernatural Feminities, and Elite Warrior Culture in the Late Pre-Christian Iron Age This thesis is a study of the valkyrjur (‘valkyries’) during the late Iron Age, specifically of the various uses to which the myths of these beings were put by the hall-based warrior elite of the society which created and propagated these religious phenomena. It seeks to establish the relationship of the various valkyrja reflexes of the culture under study with other supernatural females (particularly the dísir) through the close and careful examination of primary source material, thereby proposing a new model of base supernatural femininity for the late Iron Age. The study then goes on to examine how the valkyrjur themselves deviate from this ground state, interrogating various aspects and features associated with them in skaldic, Eddic, prose and iconographic source material as seen through the lens of the hall-based warrior elite, before presenting a new understanding of valkyrja phenomena in this social context: that valkyrjur were used as instruments to propagate the pre-existing social structures of the culture that created and maintained them throughout the late Iron Age.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Runic Networks
    Háskóli Íslands Hugvísindasvið Viking and Medieval Norse Studies Building Runic Networks A Digital Investigation of Dialects in the East Norse Runic Corpus Ritgerð til MA-prófs í Viking and Medieval Norse Studies Benjamin Holt Kt.: 220589-4719 Leiðbeinendur: Haraldur Bernharðsson Michael Lerche Nielsen September 2017 ABSTRACT The aim of this thesis is to create a complex and three-dimensional overview of East Norse dialects in the age of runic inscription (approximately 700 AD through 1200 AD). It does so through the use of two innovations – namely, variable co-occurrence and network analysis – that allow for greater depth and complexity than previous studies offer. Prior scholarship has focused primarily on only one set of linguistic variables. By examining and analyzing the occurrences of two sets of variables simultaneously, this thesis exponentially increases the complexity – and thus credibility – of the resultant dialectal analysis. Creating networks of runic inscriptions based on these co-occurrences makes it possible to free dialectal data from abstract tables and visualize linguistic connections and patterns in a previously unexplored manner. By so doing, this thesis presents new and innovative insight into the dialects of Runic Swedish, Runic Danish, and Runic Gutnish and paves the way for future digital research into the same. ÚTDRÁTTUR Markmið þessarar ritgerðar er að skapa margbrotið þrívíddaryfirlit yfir austnorrænar mállýskur í rúnaáletrunum (u.þ.b. 700–1200). Þetta er gert með notkun tveggja nýjunga – greiningar á sameiginlegum málbreytum og netgreiningu (e. network analysis) – sem gera það kleift að ná dýpri innsýn og margslungnari niðurstöðum en fyrri rannsóknir þar sem sjónum hefur aðeins verið beint að einni samstæðu af málbreytum.
    [Show full text]
  • Schulte M. the Scandinavian Dotted Runes
    UDC 811.113.4 Michael Schulte Universitetet i Agder, Norge THE SCANDINAVIAN DOTTED RUNES For citation: Schulte M. The Scandinavian dotted runes. Scandinavian Philology, 2019, vol. 17, issue 2, pp. 264–283. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu21.2019.205 The present piece deals with the early history of the Scandinavian dotted runes. The medieval rune-row or fuþork was an extension of the younger 16-symbol fuþark that gradually emerged at the end of the Viking Age. The whole inventory of dotted runes was largely complete in the early 13th century. The focus rests on the Scandina- vian runic inscriptions from the late Viking Age and the early Middle Ages, viz. the period prior to AD 1200. Of particular interest are the earliest possible examples of dotted runes from Denmark and Norway, and the particular dotted runes that were in use. Not only are the Danish and Norwegian coins included in this discussion, the paper also reassesses the famous Oddernes stone and its possible reference to Saint Olaf in the younger Oddernes inscription (N 210), which places it rather safely in the second quarter of the 11th century. The paper highlights aspects of absolute and rela- tive chronology, in particular the fact that the earliest examples of Scandinavian dot- ted runes are possibly as early as AD 970/980. Also, the fact that dotted runes — in contradistinction to the older and younger fuþark — never constituted a normative and complete system of runic writing is duly stressed. In this context, the author also warns against overstraining the evidence of dotted versus undotted runes for dating medieval runic inscriptions since the danger of circular reasoning looms large.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Stages of the Evolution of the Theory of Runic Communication
    Теорія та історія соціальних комунікацій UDC 003.345:81’22 Chekshturina V. М. Kharkiv National University of Economic HISTORICAL STAGES OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE THEORY OF RUNIC COMMUNICATION The paper is concerned with the issue of runic communication. The runic sign has been a subject of research over the last 400 years. It is a well-known fact that the runic sign has been used on the territory of Eurasia since the II century AD. During the first century, the runic sign was actively used as a means of written and symbol communication. After the XII century, it was gradually replaced by other means of written communication, continuing to exist as a means of symbol communica- tion among certain subcultures. The author distinguishes historical, disciplinary and geographi- cal vectors of scientific analysis of the runic sign. The methodology of study is based on semiotic, socio-communicative, systemic, sociocultural, immanent and contextual approaches. The author suggests that runology can be studied at universities within the framework of socio-communicative cycle disciplines. Key words: runic sign, symbol communication, Futhark, semiotics, information, coding, deco- ding, multimodal text. Introduction. The runic sign has been a subject The availability of a great amount of runic sign of scientific investigations for the last 400 years. It is systems, specific mediums, peculiarities of runic a well-known fact that the runic sign has been used inscriptions in ancient dialects which are out of use, on the territory of Eurasia since the II century AD. the change of religious paradigm create certain obsta- During the first century, the runic sign was actively cles concerning the conduction of a complex inves- used as a means of written and symbol communica- tigation as to the studying communicative potential tion.
    [Show full text]
  • Lydia Klos: Rune Stones and Roads
    Runes in context: Rune stones and roads Lydia Klos Introduction This paper focuses on the relationship between rune stones and contemporaneous roads in Sweden. Without doubt a rune stone had to be reached with the help of a road or at least a minor path so that it could be recognised and read by the people. A monument forgotten somewhere in the forest would not be suitable for remembrance, while remembrance seems to be the foremost reason to raise a rune stone. Furthermore, some inscriptions mention the building of a road and even more mention a bridge, which necessarily belongs to and extends a road. Therefore it is often argued that rune stones were most frfequently raised in con- nection to roads. A closer look at several stones showed that other monuments, e.g. traces of settlement or graves, were found nearby, and I would like to ask whether the road or another construction was the reason for placing the stone at this particular place. Was the rune stone erected close to a road to be a road monument, or was the rune stone erected at places which also had to be reached by a road? After a short survey over the state of research and the detection of roads, several in- scriptions naming road and bridge building will be discussed and the placement of the stones in question will be analysed in detail. Not only the inscription but also archaeological surveys will be discussed. At the end of the paper it will be considered, whether inscription and archaeological data correspond with each other or not.
    [Show full text]
  • Runic and Latin Written Culture: Co-Existence and Interaction of Two Script Cultures in the Norwegian Middle Ages
    Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen Deutsches Seminar Abteilung für Skandinavistik Magisterarbeit Runic and Latin Written Culture: Co-Existence and Interaction of Two Script Cultures in the Norwegian Middle Ages Eingereicht von Stephanie Elisabeth Baur zur Erlangung des Grades Magistra Artium im Fachbereich Nordische Philologie Eingereicht am: 14. Juni 2011 1. Gutachterin: Prof. Dr. Stefanie Gropper 2. Gutachterin: Prof. Dr. Antje Wischmann TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 CHANGING PERSPECTIVES IN RUNOLOGICAL RESEARCH: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 6 2.1 Prelude: Medieval Theoretical Treatments of Runes 7 2.2 Early Modern Runological Research 8 2.3 The 19th Century: The Beginnings of Modern Runology 10 2.4 Runological Research in the 20th Century 13 2.5 Paradigmatic Change: From Magic Script to Functional Writing System 14 3 METHOD AND CLASSIFICATION 18 3.1 Some Preliminary Remarks on Runology and Method 18 3.2 Basic Methodological Procedures 19 3.3 Principles for Transliteration 21 3.4 Identification of Runic Inscriptions: The Corpus Editions 24 3.5 Latin Runic Inscriptions 27 3.6 Definition of Terms 28 3.7 The Two-Script Culture of the Norwegian Middle Ages: 30 Establishing the Cultural Background 8 4 TWO SCRIPT SYSTEMS IN CONTACT: LEVELS OF IMPACT 38 4.1 Script System: Changes in the Fuþark 39 4.1.1 Preliminaries: The Concept behind the Viking Age Runes 40 4.1.2 Expansion of the Fuþark: Strategies and Motivation 43 4.1.3 Preliminary Conclusion 55 4.2 Writing Conventions: Consequences for Runic Orthography and Punctuation 57 4.2.1 Preliminaries:
    [Show full text]
  • The Jew Who Wasn't There: Studies on Jews and Their Absence in Old Norse Literature
    The Jew Who Wasn't There: Studies on Jews and Their Absence in Old Norse Literature The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Cole, Richard. 2015. The Jew Who Wasn't There: Studies on Jews and Their Absence in Old Norse Literature. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:23845410 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA The Jew Who Wasn't There: Studies on Jews and their Absence in Old Norse Literature A dissertation presented by Richard Cole to The Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Germanic Languages and Literatures Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts May 2015 Copyright Notice This copy of the dissertation has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with its author and that no quotation from the dissertation and no information derived from it may be published without the author’s prior consent. © Richard Cole, 2015. Abstract This dissertation explores certain attitudes towards Jews and Judaism in Old Norse literature. Regardless of an apparent lack of actual Jewish settlement in the Nordic region during the Middle Ages, medieval Icelanders and Norwegians frequently turned to the image of 'the Jew' in writing and in art, sometimes using him as an abstract theological model, or elsewhere constructing a similar kind of ethnic Other to the anti-Semitic tropes we find in medieval societies where gentiles really did live alongside Jews.
    [Show full text]
  • Celtic and Scandinavian Language and Cultural Contacts During the Viking Age
    VILNIUS UNIVERSITY RASA BARANAUSKIENĖ CELTIC AND SCANDINAVIAN LANGUAGE AND CULTURAL CONTACTS DURING THE VIKING AGE Doctoral dissertation Humanities, Philology (04 H) Vilnius, 2012 The research was carried out at Vilnius University in 2004–2012 Research supervisor: Prof. Dr. Habil. Jurij K. Kusmenko (The Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany; Institute for Linguistic Studies, Saint. Petersburg, Russia, Humanities, Philology – 04 H) VILNIAUS UNIVERSITETAS RASA BARANAUSKIENĖ KELTŲ IR SKANDINAVŲ KALBŲ IR KULTŪRINIAI KONTAKTAI VIKINGŲ LAIKOTARPIU Daktaro disertacija Humanitariniai mokslai, filologija (04 H) Vilnius, 2012 Disertacija rengta Vilniaus universitete 2004–2012 metais Mokslinis vadovas: Prof. Habil. Dr. Jurij. K. Kusmenko (Berlyno Humboltų universitetas, Vokietija; St. Peterburgo kalbotyros institutas, Rusija, humanitariniai mokslai, filologija – 04 H) Table of Contents 1. Celtic and Scandinavian Language and Cultural Contacts during the Viking Age.............................................................................................................. 8 1.1 The focus of the dissertation........................................................................................... 8 1.2 The object of the dissertation ......................................................................................... 9 1.3 Research aims ............................................................................................................... 10 1.4 Research material ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bidrag Till Fennoskandiens Språkliga Förhistoria I Tid Och Förhistoria Rum Språkliga Till Fennoskandiens Bidrag
    HELSINGFORS UNIVERSITET HUMANISTISKA FAKULTETEN MIKKO K.MIKKO HEIKKILÄ | BIDRAG FENNOSKANDIENS TILL SPRÅKLIGA RUM FÖRHISTORIA OCH I TID ISBN 978-951-51-0065-8 (HFT.) BIDRAG TILL FENNOSKANDIENS ISBN 978-951-51-0066-5 (PDF) UNIGRAFIA SPRÅKLIGA FÖRHISTORIA HELSINGFORS 2014 I TID OCH RUM MIKKO K. HEIKKILÄ BIDRAG TILL FENNOSKANDIENS SPRÅKLIGA FÖRHISTORIA I TID OCH RUM Mikko K. Heikkilä Akademisk avhandling som med tillstånd av Humanistiska fakulteten vid Helsingfors universitet framlägges till offentlig granskning i auditorium I i Forsthuset lördagen den 23 augusti 2014 kl. 12. HELSINGFORS UNIVERSITET På pärmbilden en utsikt över sjön Kulovesi i Kumo älvs vattendrag i Sastamala Foto Mikko Heikkilä 2014 ISBN 978-951-51-0065-8 (hft.) ISBN 978-951-51-0066-5 (PDF) Unigrafia Helsingfors 2014 Boken är tillägnad mina morföräldrar. LITE SNILLE OCH SMAK ”Mindre rådfrågande mina krafter, än min kärlek för Fäderneslandets häfder och min håg att i någon mon gagna i den vetenskap, hvaråt mina lediga stunder varit egnade, har jag företagit utarbetningen af en språkhistoria öfver de tider, som föregått våra, och fullbordande nu Första Bandet af detta Verk, är det i tillförlit till ämnets vigt och storhet, jag vågar nedlägga denna doktorsavhandling för offentlig granskning.” En aning modifierat utdrag ur förordet till första bandet (Skandinavien under hedna-åldern) i verket Svenska folkets historia från äldsta till närwarande tider av Anders Magnus Strinnholm (1834). ”Det är bättre […] att säga sanningen på ett oskickligt sätt än att vältaligt frambära vad som är lögnaktigt.” ”Därför överlämnar jag djärvt mina försök åt Din kritik, och jag ber om Ditt omdöme. Jag vet emellertid, att, som vanligt är när det gäller något nytt, jag kommer att få åtskilliga kritiker, som hävdar, att mina ord är uppdiktade och osanna, liknande de Scipios drömmar, som Cicero diktade om.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Modified Noun Phrases in the Bryggen in Bergen Runic Material and Other Old Norwegian Sources
    A study of modified noun phrases in the Bryggen in Bergen runic material and other Old Norwegian sources “Sezt niðr ok ráð rúnar!” Ágnes Viktória Jávorszky Master's thesis in linguistics in Viking and Medieval Norse Studies Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies (ILN) UNIVERSITY OF OSLO Faculty of Icelandic and Comparative Cultural Studies UNIVERSITY OF ICELAND Spring 2018 A study of modified noun phrases in the Bryggen in Bergen runic material and other Old Norwegian sources “Sezt niðr ok ráð rúnar!” Ágnes Viktória Jávorszky Master's thesis in linguistics in Viking and Medieval Norse Studies Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies (ILN) UNIVERSITY OF OSLO Faculty of Icelandic and Comparative Cultural Studies UNIVERSITY OF ICELAND Spring 2018 III © Ágnes Viktória Jávorszky 2018 A study of modified noun phrases in the Bryggen in Bergen runic material and other Old Norwegian sources Ágnes Viktória Jávorszky http://www.duo.uio.no/ Printing: Reprosentralen, Universitetet i Oslo The quote on the front page is from the Bryggen in Bergen inscription N B584 M. IV Summary This thesis examines the runic inscriptions of Bryggen in Bergen as well as the Old Norwegian corpus currently consisting of four texts in the Menotec corpus of Old Norwegian, with regard to modified noun phrases. The relevant noun phrases in the Bryggen in Bergen corpus are glossed and, along with the relevant output from the Old Norwegian corpus, they are gathered into tables and statistics are drawn and contrasted to other, existing research on Old Icelandic. The thesis is a part of the project Constraints on syntactic variation: Noun phrases in early Germanic languages project (NFR 261847) and carries out research for the initial stages of the project, to examine the empirical distribution of noun phrases.
    [Show full text]
  • Samnordisk Runtextdatabas – Hur Kan Den Utvecklas?
    Samnordisk runtextdatabas – hur kan den utvecklas? Jan Owe För att en databas ska vara intressant att använda behöver den uppdateras, annars blir den – om grundmaterialet ändras – snart ”out of date”. Varje år hittas nya runinskrifter, varje år skrivs nya uppsatser – forskningen går framåt – detta måste påverka en databas med run- inskrifter. En del av forskningsresultaten gäller runinskrifter i allmänhet, annat gäller enbart enskilda inskrifter, ytterligare en del gäller enbart inskrifter i ett visst område. Hur mycket av de senaste forskningsresultaten kan och bör tas med i Samnordisk runtextdatabas? Grunden till dagens databas lades på 1980-talet då de vikingatida runinskrifterna lades in i en databas vid Uppsala universitet. Idag finns fem datafiler: en fil med runtexten (trans- littererad), en fil med fornvästnordisk normalisering, en fil med ”nationellt fornspråk” (run- svenska, rundanska eller fornvästnordiska), en fil med engelsk översättning och en fil med annan information om inskrifterna – såsom plats, placering, material, koordinater, runristare, länkar m.m. Behöver dessa filer förändras och kompletteras? Det datorprogram som finns för att använda databasen skrevs ursprungligen i MS-DOS- miljö och har senare av artikelförfattaren skrivits om för att kunna användas i Windows-miljö. Men tekniken går framåt, är det dags nu att få databasen mer tillgänglig i andra miljöer, såsom på Internet och i mobilen? Databasens historik Samnordisk runtextdatabas bygger på den databas som skapades med start hösten 1986 vid Institutionen för nordiska språk vid Uppsala universitet (Lagman och Williams 1989). Den databasen omfattade de vikingatida runinskrifterna i sten från medeltida svenskt område. I den första databasversionen från 1987 fanns det 2455 runinskrifter, varav 37 från Gotland (http://www.nordiska.uu.se/forskning/projekt/rundata/rundata-0.zip).
    [Show full text]
  • Same Script, Different Rules? on the Alleged Different Spelling of Names Compared to Other Words in Runic Inscriptions
    Same script, different rules? On the alleged different spelling of names compared to other words in runic inscriptions Alessandro Palumbo The article deals with the question of whether words with different communicative weight are spelled differently in Viking-Age Swedish runic inscriptions and more spe- cifically with the supposedly more careful spelling of personal names compared to formulaic words. The hypothesis that names appear less frequently in a deviant form than formulaic words is tested empirically in three investigations: 1) A quantitative study of the amount of spelling mistakes in a selection of words from the two afore- mentioned categories; 2) An analysis of a selection of deviant spellings in the context of the inscriptions where they occur; 3) A study of the inscriptions signed by the rune carver Øpir. The results of the quantitative study reveal a small but statistically significant dif- ference in the proportion of deviant spellings of personal names and appellatives. On average, names are in fact spelled correctly 3% more often than formulaic words. The contextualised analysis of deviant spellings show that misspelled names and mis- spelled formulaic words often occur together, which indicates that in such cases mis- spellings depend more on the carver’s skill, than on whether words belong to different categories. The investigation of Øpir’s inscriptions reveals that miscarvings and his typical practice of abbreviating words can be found both in very frequent words and in names, suggesting that the treatment of these two categories is similar as far as their spelling is concerned. A general result regards the overall low occurrence of deviant forms, which calls for a scrutiny of interpretations which presuppose carving mistakes.
    [Show full text]