@osric
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
-
-
-
Ós in OE does not mean mouth. It is singular “god”. There is one translation of the rune poem floating around out there that has this translation, and that spawned all this confusion.
Os means “mouth” in Latin. Why this particular scholar Felt this one rune was named in Latin is a bit baffling, the origin of the word in old English is fairly clear.
Maybe because Ós is the ordfruma, Chieftain or inventor, Of all speech… A double entendre was inferred, and indeed it probably was there, many God names or pagan concepts are sort of hidden with clever little tricks, to make the poem acceptable to a Christian audience. Tir For example, obviously invokes the God Týr In many minds, but the word does not literally replace Tiw, It means “Glorious”, It just sounds like Týr, The norse name of the God. It was supposed to.
Ós sounds a bit like Latin Os, and the mouth does make speech, so in this way maybe a certain monk avoids getting executed?
Regardless, the dictionary definition of the word is definitely not mouth, in the language in which the poem was written. So the reverse strategy, say what you mean and imply it means something else. As opposed to Tir, imply what you mean… and say something innocent.
-
It is important to add I think, that the older rune poems like the OE Rune Poem, associate the runes with ideas… but do NOT teach you how to say it. For example:
Eolh-secg eard hæfþ oftust on fenne
wexeð on wature, wundaþ grimme,
blode breneð beorna gehwylcne
ðe him ænigne onfeng gedeþ.Elk-Sedge grows oftenest on the fen
It flourishes in water, and grimly wounds
burns the blood, of any man whomsoever
grasps itMore or less. Now, can a newcomer to runes read this stanza, and tell me from this reading… what sound this one makes??
-
@thehoptimist asks:
Was there one symbol on each twig in the account of Tacitus, and second:
Were the Runes fist used for this purpose and then for writing, or vise versa?
On the first; we don’t know. What is said in Germania is literally our only account of the rite. We have no real way to know, but one seems logical, unless we think there were entire words written on them, which seems counterintuitive.If they are ideograms here, it would be best to break the ideas down to their most basic form, so they can provide the widest range of answers.
On the second: As the staves were probably derived in very early times from Etruscan, it is most probable in my view they were symbols for writing first, or that they were ideograms AND letters, that were then put to use for sortilege.
-
-
-
-
-
Afrikaans
Dutch
English
Frisian
German