User talk:Haukurth/Archive5

Hi, I've noticed the work you've done in reverting this troll's vandalism. On behalf of all the contributors to those pages, thanks a lot. I'm glad to see that jerk has been banned. However it's a shame his IP wasn't blocked as well..... John Smith's 17:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll happily block any reincarnations if you notice them. We only block IPs temporarily, though, and he may have a floating IP. Haukur 17:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do Icelandic people really believe in huldufólk? --Jbergquist 03:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Conversation deleted at the request of one party. See archives for March 1, 2006. Haukur 12:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was asked to help Christianity with it's discussions on becoming NPOV... there is a debate on Talk:Hermeticism#Reason_for_reverting_Infinitysnake's_changes_2/22/06 on whether it should be stated that some scholars believed Hermes Trismegistus to be a real man. In my arguments I have noted the Christianity article, and I feel that the contributors of it may be able to give some view on how a religion article should be NPOV. I don't know if you will agree with me or not, but your help is requested.

KV 06:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm very glad to see that you was so interested in my site, that you deleted absolutely every external CyberSamurai-link. Thank you very very very much. You seem to be my greatest fan! :-* But now I want to explain something: 1. the Prose Edda version that I added as external link is (I know I know) from Arthur Gilchrist Brodeur and I also know that you already linked a version of A. G. Brodeur, but there's no other version in the net, that's arranged in chapters and/or has an index from which you can jump to ... well, to everywhere. 2. CyberSamurai.net has the "complete" Poetic Edda in Old Norse and English language. 3. and ... well, well, well, the COMPLETE Prose Edda in Old Norse. I've only one question: do you know where you have to go (on this site: http://www.northvegr.org/lore/prose/index.php) to find for example the Þórskenningar or something like that??? I don't think so (or maybe after you read it for the 10th time), but you have to arrange it for the persons that read it for the very first time. By the way you can tell me why the translations from other sites are better than mine. Forget it, i know that they aren't (I don't mean that mine is better), but I never deleted external links or placed my external link on top of other ones that came before me.

-* good bye Alki

P.S.: If you don't convince me that my site's nothing as shit, I'll always repost my links .....

I haven't systematically deleted your links—they're better than nothing—but I slowly replace them with ones I've judged more appropriate. I'll reply further later. Haukur 23:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I feel compelled to say something in the interest of fairness- I admit that I have replaced a few of the links in question (CyberSamurai links) with links to copies at other websites that I felt were providing the texts either more accurately or in a fashion that is more 'user friendly'. If this has caused a problem, Alki, then please let me and/or Haukur know specifically why you feel that your copies are superiour, and therefore should be the preferred links.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 16:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sæll og blessaður, Sveinbjörn heiti ég og mundi gjarnan vilja geta rætt við þig í gegnum tölvupóst. Því miður finn ég ekki netfangið þitt hér né á heimasíðu þinni. Hafðu endilega samband við mig -- netfang mitt er sveinbjornt hjá simnet.is kv. Sveinbjörn

I posted a lot of questions about the Icelandic pronunciation of the letter g in talk:Icelandic language. It's a lot of questions, I realise, but is there a chance you could look at it and provide a few answers? I'm trying to standardise the transcription of Icelandic names on the Korean Wikipedia, so I've been trying to find out how the pronunciation of Icelandic relates to the spelling, but the letter g has been a stumbling block. I'd appreciate any help, and it would be especially helpful if you could provide IPA transcriptions for the words whose pronunciation I've been wondering about. Thanks. --Iceager 15:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sæll, félagi!

Ég hefi verið fjarstaddur um hríð, og þegar ég fór aftur að skrifa urðu mér á ógurleg mistök, sem þú getur séð á spjallsíðunni um íslenzka tungu. En, þar eð þú ert orðinn admin og allt það, eigum við að halda áfram samstarfi? Ég geri mér ljóst, að þú ert námsmaður, sem fórnar frístundunum í Wikipediu. En, ef við höldum áfram, hvar finnst þér að við ættum að byrja? Mér dettur þrennt í hug:

1. Halda áfram með skáldatalið.

2. Halda áfram með Wikiheimildina.

3. Setja inn almennilega íslenzka málfræði á ensku Wikipediuna.

Hvað sýnist þér?

Beztu kveðjur Io 18:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (PS: Ég er að taka tvær vikur í það, sem Kanar kalla R&R, þannig að næstu dagar gætu orðið verðmætir — eftir það er ég ekki sjálfs mín herra).Reply

Sæll! Ég skrapp til Íslands um helgina og hef verið lítið við. Henti þó inn einni rímu á Heimildina í gær. Ég er til í skáldatal, er að hugsa um að taka Stein Steinar - hirti einmitt bók með enskum þýðingum af verkum hans heima. Hvernig líst þér á að skrifa nokkur orð um Bólu-Hjálmar? Nú, eða hvern sem þú vilt :) Haukur 16:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ég væri til í að taka að mér Bólu-Hjálmar, nema hvað ævisaga hans er ekki eins einföld og flestir halda. Eins og öllum skáldum sæmir, var hann miklu flóknari en svo, að ein Wikipediusíðusíða gerði honum rétt skil. En — ef þú varst sáttur við samantekt mína um Magnús prúða, þá skal ég skrifa betri grein um Hjálmar.

PS: Gegn öllum fjölskylduhefðum ber ég ákveðna virðingu fyrir Steinari, þannig að láttu hann endilega verða þitt "prósjekt". Cheers Io 18:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

PPS: Ég skal skal skrifa Bólu-Hjálmarssögu. En segðu mér, þar sem ég gaf loforð endur fyrir löngu að klára "Á ferð og flugi" eftir Stephan G., eru einhver ákveðin tímamörk á slíkum loforðum á Wikipediu (kvenkyns :).? Beztu kveðjur Io 18:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for supporting my RFA. I really appreciated the show of support and all the kind words from so many great Wikipedians. I hope I live up to them! -- Vary | Talk 17:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Gerðu mér þann greiða að lesa greinina Árni beiskur og gagnrýna. Mér finnst þetta vera hæfilegt íslenzkt sjónarmið, og ég er farinn að hafa ákveðna samúð með Árna. En ef þetta er ekki appropriate fyrir yfirvegandi enskumælandi lesndur, láttu mig vita. Beztu kveðjur Io 19:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Takk fyrir bæturnar. En bara af forvitni — kannski kemur þetta með aldrinum — finnst þér Árni ekki hafa verið fremur tragísk persóna í þessu öllu? Beztu kveðjur Io 21:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello ! I'm GymnoPedia [[1]], from the French Wikipedia. I'm contributing in the Norse Mythology Project, essentially in translating since I'm not an expert... I was looking for nice pictures to embellish our articles, and apparently you are a real master in that area. I was particularly interested in the  , but unfortunately it is not on the Wikimedia Commons. Thus I don't know how I can download it in my article... And there're many more... Please help me ! Many thanks, I you don't mind please reply onto my page, I still have no account in the English WP: [[2]] Thanks again !

Aftur bið ég um skoðun. Greinin Icelandic nationalism var hryllingur. Nennirðu að líta yfir breytingar mínar og bæta við þínum — þú ert a. m. k. betri enskumaður en ég. Beztu kveðjur Io 16:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Endilega líttu á síðuna. Ég breytti henni svo mjög, að hún er núna nánast öll eftir mig. Vote for deletion væri hugsanlega skásti kosturinn. Beztu kveðjur Io 17:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 09:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Þjóðernishyggjunni mætti sleppa alveg, þar er ég sammála. Það var hrein handvömm hjá mér að senda Hannesi skeyti á notendasíðuna hans í staðinn fyrir talksíðuna. Annars hefir hann mildazt svo hin síðari ár, að hann kallar varla yfir mig bölvun Guðs, sína og Sjálfstæðisflokksins fyrir vikið. Ég er raunar feginn því að hafa getað tekið aftur seinustu ummæli á spjallsíðunni um íslenzka tungu áður en nokkur fann hjá sér hvöt til að finna að gersamlega óviðeigandi orðbragði. Það hefði reyndar verið nokkur írónía í því fólgin (ekki að ég muni, hvernig þetta gengur fyrir sig hjá Wikipediu), ef þú hefðir orðið fyrstur administratora til að veit mér áminningu. :) Beztu kveðjur Io 17:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sæll!

Þú mættir gjarnan láta í ljós skoðun á Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Icelandic_nationalism, ef mér hefir þá tekizt að setja þetta á réttan stað. Cheerio Io 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for your support in my RfA.

Sadly, my RfA failed (on my birthday out of all days!), mainly due to it's closeness to the previous one. I hope that in any future RfAs I'll have your support!

Nonetheless, if I can do anything for you don't hesitate to ask me.

Have a nice St Patrick's Day!

Computerjoe's talk 21:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, why did you unblock Bobblewik? He's even been asked by Jimbo to stop using his bot. I ask that you reconsider. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I might be missing something, of course, but I unblocked him because I didn't see him doing any mass delinking of dates. We normally don't block users who do incidental edits to link or delink dates. Incidentally I think Jimbo may not have got all sides of the story - bobblewik has done a lot of work fixing problems with his script and trying to build a larger consensus on the issue.

Is there some particular recent edit of bobblewik's which you disagree with and could use as an example of what you find to be inappropriate behaviour? I'm happy to discuss the issue with you. Haukur 21:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter how many he has done. The fact is, he's carrying on despite numerous requests to stop, a clear lack of consensus on a way forward on the dates linking policy, and being told to stop by Jimbo. Bobblewik hardly is an "incidental" editor of delinking dates, he's probably done several thousand of them - all without the appropriate bot permission or a consensus on whether doing them is an appropriate action to take. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that he has stopped his two-edits-per-minute semi-automated delinking of dates. I don't think there's anything inappropriate with him doing an edit here and there which delinks dates. Many people do that. Do you have an example of an edit which you find inappropriate? Haukur 21:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's the fact it is Bobblewik, who has been asked not to run a script or bot - but is doing so. It's clearly contentious, so people shouldn't do it, just out of courtesy until there is a acceptable way forwards. Here are some edits where Bobblewik has run his script/bot: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm looking at the first of those edits: [14] In this edit bobblewik delinked the years 1941, 1942 and 1943, all of which were linked multiple times in the article. He also delinked the word December but was careful not to delink 12 August 1946 which has to be linked to allow date preferences to work. In the same edit bobblewik standardized the representation of the units 'lb', 'hp' and 'kW' in accordance with the Manual of Style. I personally think this was an excellent edit. I don't see any use in linking the word December in this article - I think the typical reader is very unlikely to be looking for information on the twelfth month while reading this article. It is conceivable that some readers might want to read up on the events of the years 1941, 1942 and 1943 in their respective articles but I don't think this is common enough to warrant linking the years. I think it's especially distracting to link them multiple times. Taken as a whole I think bobblewik's edit is a definite improvement. I see no reason to block him for it or others like it. He makes a lot of useful janitor edits like that. Haukur 21:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Again, I think you're missing the point. The fact is that Bobblewik has repeatedly been asked to stop his bot edits. He keeps on making them. Yes, he's made some good edits while removing date links. But he's also made plenty of mistakes. This is why we have the bot permission procedure - bots are potentially dangerous. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

He says he manually approves every edit and while he may have been careless before while he was doing two edits per minute it seems to me that he's currently being quite careful and not delinking 911 or silly things like that :) Haukur 22:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Haukur, this is just to let you know I've responded to your comment at WP:RFAR; I stupidly posted in the middle of the whole rather messy thread, after your first comment, so I thought you might easily miss it. You made a very good point, but I'm not sure you were aware of all the circumstances. Best, Bishonen | ノート 00:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC).Reply

From your latest comment I believe you don't know the history I was talking about, or anything about the problem I'm trying to contain. I used to feel just the way you do about Everyking; now I just feel it's discouraging that you decide it's my ruffled feathers that are the problem. Never mind, I'm all done. Definitely. Apologies for spamming your page. Bishonen | ノート 02:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC).Reply

Sorry :( Your feathers are pretty. Love the balloon article. Haukur 10:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ég er í híði, sem stendur, a. m. k. hvað ritstörf snertir. Kem vonandi tvíefldur aftur með hækkandi sól. Þið hinir: "Keep up the good work". Beztu kveðjur Io 18:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

in this context, I was just wondering, why did the Younger Futhark discontinue both "e-like" runes? On Younger Futhark we pretend they just dropped the runes that had become phonologically redundant. But if you compare Old Norse#Sounds, there are eleven vowel qualities and 17 consonants

i y u ɛ e œ ø o ɔ æ a p b t d k g m n f θ ð s h w j r l   (Old Norse)
i   u           ɔ   a   b t   k   m n f þ   s h     r l   (Younger)
i   u   e     o  ï  a p b t d k g m n f þ   s h w j r l   (Elder)

why did they drop p, d, g, o and e? Not because they were superfluous, certainly, but, it appears, because the Elder Futhark were not sufficient anymore anyway, so it didn't matter if they had to express 11 vowels with just 6 or just 4 vowel signs? and give up the voiceless/voiced distinction while they were at it? dab (ᛏ) 11:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Clearly, the younger fuþark is much less phonologically precise than the older version. It's an odd sort of progress but a simpler system must have had its advantages - fewer letters to remember, less of a need to analyze minor distinctions in one's speech. But that doesn't really explain very well. I wonder if there are good parallels anywhere for this kind of development in a writing system. Haukur 11:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

well, there were the Hittites, who scorned certain Akkadian cuneiform signs, even though they would have been useful for expressing Hittite phonology; but that's not really a direct comparandum, since they didn't start by using the full set and only later reduced to a simplified system as was the case with the Younger Futhark. Strange indeed, maybe it is connected that the Elder Futhark were part writing system, part mystical secret for the initiated only? And the Younger Futhark was a taking over of the alphabet by the man in the street, as it were? Another imperfect comparison would be the invention of the abjad; you lost precision by dropping the vowels, but you only had to remember a fifth of the signs of a syllabary. dab (ᛏ) 20:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've been going through the "External links" section of our articles on several ancient texts. We normally link to several translations and editions of the texts; that's a good thing. But obviously we don't have unlimited space for links and often the exact same text is available on more than one site. Then we have to use judgment to select the best ones. I've been asked about this in the past and I thought I'd give some insight into my thinking here. For me the single most important criterion in evaluating a site is this:

• Is the edition of the text published at the site carefully attributed to the original source?

It's not enough to say Hávamál. The site should say which edition or translation of the Hávamál it is using and where it obtained it from. If any changes have been made to that edition then that should be carefully noted.

Here are some other criteria:

• Does the site have advertising or other distracting irrelevant content?
• Did the people behind the site transcribe the text themselves or did they lift it from another website?
• If the text is lifted from another website, is that noted anywhere?
• Is there any blatant plagiarism?
• Is the text reasonably reliable? Are there obvious typos or transcription errors?
• Does the site correctly use 'Þ' as capital thorn and 'þ' as lower case thorn?
• Is the text at the site readable? Is the site user friendly?
• Is the indexing of the text good? Is it easy to find particular parts of the text?
• Is the site stable? Does it look like it's still going to be up in five years?
• Is the site the product of a reliable organization?
• Does the site have a silly name?
• Does the site appear to give some thought to copyright issues?
• Does the site promote a political or religious agenda?

An example of a site I'm always pleased to link to is http://www.sacred-texts.com/ They have the Bellows translation of the Poetic Edda here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/poe/poe00.htm Everything is carefully attributed, readable and user-friendly. There are no distractions and the site has a professional air. Haukur 15:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for your support of my RFA, which passed narrowly. I will try to be worthy of your trust. Regards, Kaisershatner 20:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

You sent me a welcome to Wiki page. You seem like a cool guy.
Mainly Jersyko, John K, Griot, and Rjensen have been seriously harrassing me since I tried to edit or even talk about their article

The Democrat Party edit war has escalated itself into huge proportions.

Jersyko and I got into a debate. He used the Wiki xy debate procedure, I guess you'd call it, and I x'd and y'd him back. I believe he lost badly. He and the others flipped out and archived the entire talk page with all the conversations on it. There are nasty comments still there left by John K. and Jersyko. At least, of this writing they're still there.
I put my own feelings into this also and made a mistake. They didn't delete the page and their is a link to it.

They say they will archive every time I make a comment on the page. thewolfstar 07:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

hi Haukurth, how are you? long time no hear. You seem to be knowledgeable in this area and was wondering if you could take a look at the discussion that is taking place here, Talk:Meißen porcelain, thank you. with kind regards Gryffindor 09:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you swap around Eirik Håkonson and Eirik Håkonsson? There also seems to be a duplicate at Eric of Hlathir, not sure how to respond to that. Fornadan (t) 16:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'm on it. Well spotted. Haukur 20:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, actually maybe we should discuss this a bit to find the best location for the article. I'm of two minds. In Old Norse he seems to be usually referred to simply as Eiríkr jarl or Eiríkr jarl Hákonarson but I can't find an instance of Eiríkr Hákonarson which seems slightly artificial. Using a modern Norwegian form of that seems more artificial still. I've used Eiríkr Hlaðajarl a few times but now that I search for it I can't find that anywhere else.

Maybe it would be nice for Hlaðir/Lade to figure in the title somewhere but it's not obvious which form to use. For places which still exist we tend to use modern forms but do Hlaðir still exist? Is there a town called Lade?

But if we were to use something like Eiríkr of Hlaðir we would run into trouble with the Hákons, since there were three of them. We could end up with Hákon I of Hlaðir, Hákon II of Hlaðir and Hákon III of Hlaðir which would be extremely artifical and eccentric. I'd prefer Hákon jarl Grjótgarðsson, Hákon jarl Sigurðarson and Hákon jarl Eiríksson or Hákon Grjótgarðsson, Hákon Sigurðarson and Hákon Eiríksson. I must admit that the lowercase "jarl" might look confusing to English speakers between the name and the patronym, Old Norse style.

Some rambling thoughts, let me know what you think. Haukur 20:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not sure myself. I would be content as long as a form of the patronymic is included and numeral avoided. Lade is today a district of Trondheim city. (We should probably continue this discussion at Eirik Håkonson though) Fornadan (t) 11:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you left a comment indicating that the fair use justifications for an image's use in this article were insufficient. If you still believe this is so, would you please consider listing the image at WP:PUI or WP:IFD. Thanks. --Hetar 08:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you're interested in mythology... I have a request, could you take a look at Mythical origins of language and let me know (or post on the talk page) if there are any Icelandic/Nordic (or other!) myths I'm missing. Thanks! :) PS. I agree with you about the lack of good information on African topics. I stubbed Sudanese literature, its horrible, but there is more chance that people will work on something that is not a redlink... or so I hope :) - FrancisTyers 21:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, the origin of speech is probably close enough, I'll add it in :) - FrancisTyers 12:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so Sudanese literature is now at least as long -- and hopefully informative -- as Faroese literature. I've also stubbed some of the writers/poets. And no, I'm still not interested in the money, just feels good to be WP:CSB :)) What I'd really like is more information on the subject. Most of my current sources (JSTOR, EBSCO, etc.) are dry -- my library doesn't even come back with any results for "Sudanese literature" or "Literature of Sudan", and I don't want to base the whole thing on the El-Nour paper -- besides that doesn't cover any of the pre-Islamic or Islamic stuff. Anyway, enjoy, and if you get some time add a couple of lines. :) - FrancisTyers 01:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm impressed. This is getting to about the level of Britannica's coverage [15] The scarcity of sources accessible to us is serious, even Amazon doesn't seem to have much in the way of useful works.

In the context of that bounty (whether you actually want it or not) I'd say you were about halfway towards what I was thinking of as a "decent" article :) Haukur 08:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Norse mythology has very few references to the origin of language (or even linguistic differences); the most similar stories deal with Odin acquiring meta-linguistic knowledge (hanging on the World Tree to learn runecraft, and stealing the Mead of Poetry). Otherwise, the only reference I can find is a single sentence in the Prose Edda. The shortened creation story in that book mentions one of Odin's companions giving Ask and Embla the power of speech. (I forget whether Hœnir or Lodurr was involved, unfortunately!) ISNorden 22:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm new to this thing, so I'm wondering why you deleted my first-written article about TSDME. In case you don't remember, it was about an artistic Amsterdam-based multimedia collective.

I deleted it under speedy deletion criterion A7: "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." If you rewrite the article (I can send you the text if you don't have it) so that it credibly asserts the importance or significance of its subject it will not be speedily deleted again. It might still be deleted through a discussion on WP:AfD. Sorry for the jargon, I know it can be tough being new here - welcome! :) Haukur 21:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I didn't know that! I'll make sure the importance of the article will be clarified in the future. --Soetermans 21:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is not related to Wikipedia in a direct way, but I take it here anyway since one can always delete this question after an answer is provided. My question is: Does Icelandic ekkert neut. 'no, none' (or rather, 'nothing') come from ekki nokkurt neut. 'not someone' (or rather, 'not something')? The rason I ask is that in Jamtlandic we lack the Swedish inget neut. 'no, none' (or rather, 'nothing') and instead needs to make the construction ittnogoð [ˈɪtːˌnɞɣɞ], lit. 'not something'.

Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 19:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC))Reply

ekki, †etki fn., ao. 'ekkert; eigi'; sbr. nno. ikkje, sæ. icke, d. ikke; < *eittki < *eittgi < *ne-ain(a)t(a)-gin, eiginl. hvk. af engi (2); ekkert fn. (17. öld) 'ekki neitt' hefur aðlagast fn. eins og hvert, eitthvert og sérhvert. Sjá engi (2).

(Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon (1989). Íslensk orðsifjabók. Reykjavík: Orðabók Háskólans. page 149)

So, basically, "ekkert" comes into existence from "ekki" by anology with pronouns such as "hvert", "eitthvert" and "sérhvert". Haukur 19:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for the etymology for ekkert (which I have seen spelled ekkurt as well).

Swedish (and Eastern Norwegian) inte is by some reason not in the entry above, even though it has the same etymology (from Old Norse eintgi which through analogy with einginn - or plain metathesis? - turned into Late Old Swedish ingti). In North Norse we rather have the stem itt- here. Do you have any idea of a more detailed etymology here? (The area having this negation is Swedish Norrland and at least Tröndelag in Norway.)

Concerning a Local Written Normal: As you perhaps remember, I am working on a written normal for the North Norse dialects spoken in Jämtland. (Remember the similar, or close-to-identical, histories of Jämtland and Iceland prior to 1178.) One thing I have partially focused on is to respect the Old Norse pitch accent system also in the written normal. As you know, Old Norse had one kind of pitch for monosyllabic words and another one for bi- and multisyllabic words. When some monosyllabic words broke up into several syllables (like bœkr 'books' > bœk[V]r, where [V] is some vowel, mainly a schwa in Mainland Scandinavia) in the late Old Norse period, this gave rise to either an even stronger pitch accent system (like in Sweden and Eastern Norway), a weakened pitch accent system(like in Iceland, Faroe islands, Finland and Denmark) or stayed more or less the same in strength (like in Gotland, Eastern Denmark and Western Norway). Now, in my spelling of Jamtlandic, one can tel the pitch accent from the spelling by counting the number of formal syllables. Examples: Jamtlandic bœkr [bøːkər] 'books' is formally monosyllabic, which is in accordance with the pronunciation (from Old Norse bœkr which is monosyllabic); Jamtlandic hest’ [hɛɛst]/heste [hɛstə] 'horses' is formally bisyllabic, which is in accordance with the pronunciation (from Old Norse hesta (acc. of hestar) which is bisyllabic). Now, a problem arises when writing the definite form of these two examples. One still has a monosyllabic accent in [bøːkran] 'the books' (from Old Norse bœkrinar, later bœkrina through analogy with masculine accusative) and a bisyllabic accent in [hɛstan] 'the horses' (from Old Norse hestana). Now, how would one spell [bøːkran] and [hɛstan] in a formally monosyllabic and bisyllabic way, respectively? It is clear that Early Old Norse had bœkr inar (lit. 'books the') and hesta ina (lit. 'horses the/those') which explains why the pitch accents are the same in indefinite and definite forms, respectively. (This is also a proof that the pitch accent system was formed before the noun and the definite article/pronoun merged into one entity.) Should I write something like bœkr-an and hesta-n, respectively? Now one can determine the pitch accent by looking at the part before the hyphen; bœkr- is formally monosyllabic, so bœkr-an must be pronunced monosyllabically, and hesta- is formally bisyllabic, so hesta-n must be pronunced bisyllabically. Note that this would also mean that one should write hús-eð 'the house' (Early Old Norse hús it) and ouge-ð 'the eye' (Early Old Norse auga it) giving the correct correlation between spelling and pronunciation. Haukur, can you find another solution than my proposed using hyphenation?

Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 16:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC))Reply

I've thought about this for a while now and it seems to me like your hyphenation solution is workable, if not very eye-pleasing. Maybe you could use an apostrophe rather than a hyphen (bœkr'an, hesta'n, hús'eð)? Haukur 20:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your reply of my rather lengthy post here. An important reason I turn to you is that this would actually have importance and relevance also for writing normalised Old Norse (NON). (E.g., as it in your course on Old Norse.) As you know, the nasal vowels aren't represented in NON, even though we know for sure they were there. (Which we know from extrapolating ON from Proto-Norse, from the First Grammarian and from the dialect spoken in Elfdal, Dalir.) Neither are the pitch accents, which we also know where there in some form. I am sure that also Old Icelandic had a different pitch in bœkrinar 'the books' compared with hestarnir 'the horses'. In my philosophy of how to write Old Norse, both nasalation and pitch accents should be explicit in the orthography. What are your thoughts on this? The current version of NON is unfortunately just a modification of Rasmus Christian Rask's spelling of Modern Icelandic. I don't think (the modification of) Rask's spelling is very relevant for NON.

The problem of using an apostrophe for explicitly denoting the pitch accent is that I already use it for apocopation. Unlike the "southern" dialects of Scandinavian (Icelandic, Faroese, Danish, Gutnish, Western Norwegian and Geatic) the "northern" dialects have a very profound way of treating the word endings. Words which had a short stem in Old Norse have a preserved (or levelled or strengthened) ending in the modern speech, and words which had a long stem in Old Norse have a weakened (or apocopated or preserved when strengthened in the former case) ending. In most dialects spoken in Jämtland, the apocopation in the latter case is total, but one compensates this by adding a syllable to the stem. (For most words this means that ione gets a kind of "stuttering", and for some words it means that a svarabhakti is added between two consonants ion the stem. A very small number of words simply lose the ending without the aforementioned kind of compensations, but preserve the bisyllabic pitch accent anyway.) This apocopation is denoted with an apostophe in my created orthography, which makes it confusing to use an apostrophe also for the phenomenon of preserved monosyllabic accent when adding a definite ending.

(Note that Standard Swedish today only to some degree is "northern" in its character. This has several reasons, two of them being the fact that Standard Swedish is a mix between "southern" Geatic and "northern" Suenoic, and the rivality with Denmark which made the common weak ending -e to be abolished from the written normal and instead introduce -e, -a and -o -- from Old Swedish -i, -a and -u, respectively, which were preserved in short stemmed words -- throughout the written language no matter the stem quantity of the word in question. Today we only see frozen examples of this "northern" Sueonic system; Gudi given ='given to God'; till salu ='for sale' etc.)

The major advantage of using a hyphen is the fact that in Early Old Norse, bœkr and inar where two separate words which were added to one compunded word. In at least English (and to some extent also in the scandinavian languages), this compounding is denoted by using a hyphenation. E.g., 'hot' and 'headed' become 'hot-headed' as a compund, not "hot'headed" with an apostophe. Due to the pitch accent of the modern language, this Early Old Norse "hyphenation" (i.e., compunding) is evident. (This is of course not the case in e.g. Icelandic, which probably makes you feel you don't feel this way of thinking in compunds is as natural as it is to me who speaks a dialect of Norse which has a preserved pitch accent.)

Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 14:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC))Reply

I saw that you've worked on the Bill Ritter (politician) article, and would like to encourage you to support it in the USCOTW elections. Thank you, Editor19841 22:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

[16] "Worked on" seems generous to me :) I didn't even remember the name. Haukur 22:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

It seems like you have editing alot in the article, and it was not even two months ago. You're in your mid 20's and already having a bad memory, Höukr? ;)

Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 16:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC))Reply

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Lydia Sokolova, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 08:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

 

Dear Haukurth/Archive5,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your faith in me, and was overwhelmed by the positive response to my RFA; for it shows that at least I'm doing something right. :) I've started working to improve myself already, and I hope that next time, things run better, and maybe, just maybe, one day we can bask on the shores of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 21:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi HaukurÞ,

I'm currently working on an article about Odin's names on fr:. I have difficulties with two of them, and I thought you might be of help :

1. According to Rudolf Simek, Hangi is one of Odin's names used by Tindr Hallkelsson, but he doesn't mention where. It must be in his Hákonardrápa, where Hanga can be found twice (with a capital H in stanza 1, without in stanza 7). Could you tell me if any of them refers to Odin?
2. Same thing with Herjann. Simek says it's used by Einarr skálaglamm, but where? It might be in Vellekla, but I'm not sure at all. Could you have a glance at it?

Thank you very much. Sigo 17:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Simek is probably just mistaken, there are a lot of errors in his work. My guess is that somewhere along the way Einarr skálaglamm got confused with Einarr Skúlason who did compose a poem where "Herjans" (genitive) occurs. A Google search like [17] will give you some stuff :)

I'll check Tindr and see if I can translate the relevant verse. Haukur 19:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think it's safe to say that Simek (or one of his students/assistants) made a mistake. If you look up "Herjann" in Lexicon Poeticum you see that "ESk" is mentioned as using the word. If you're too lazy to pursue that any further you might just assume that it means Einarr skálaglamm rather than, as it happens, Einarr Skúlason. Haukur 19:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, it's actually in his most famous stanza :) It relates to the Battle of Hjörungavágr. Snorri Sturluson sets the scene like this:

"Then the fleets came together, and one of the sharpest of conflicts began. Many fell on both sides, but the most by far on Hakon's side; for the Jomsborg vikings fought desperately, sharply, and murderously, and shot right through the shields. So many spears were thrown against Earl Hakon that his armour was altogether split asunder, and he threw it off. So says Tind Halkelson:"

Varða gims sem gerði

Gerðr bjúglimum herða,

gnýr óx Fjölnis fúra,

farlig sæing jarli,

þás hringfǫ́um Hanga

hrynserk, viðum brynju

hruðusk riðmarar Róða

rastar, varð at kasta.

Anthony Faulkes translates the second half: "When he had to discard his ring-short [damaged] Hangi's [Odin's] tinkling shirt; tossing horses [ships] of Rodi's league [sea] were cleared of mail-coat trees [warriors]."

I see that Finnur Jónsson had a slightly different version:

þás hringfǫ́um Hanga

hrynserk Viðurr brynju,

hruðusk riðmarar Róða

rastar, varð at kasta.

I would translate: "When the Viðurr of armour [warrior] had to throw off his tinkling shirt of Hangi the shaking horses of Róði were cleared."

In any case it is clear that "Hangi" occurs in the stanza in the kenning "Hanga hrynserkr": armour/mail-coat/byrnie. Haukur 19:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Einarr skálaglamm / Einarr Skúlason : Assuming that Herjann in Einarr Skúlason’s verse refers to Odin, your hypothesis is probably right. And your explanation of what caused the mistake is convincing too. So Herjann as an Odin's name is probably used in Einarr Skúlason’s Øxarflokkr (even if, according to this site, it’s not clear whether the stanza belongs to Øxarflokkr or not, but it doesn’t matter much).

• Tindr Hallkelsson : It's really his most famous stanza. I’ve just found it in French in a translation of Heimskringla… Thanks to your information, I could add the number of the stanza to the article (I like very accurate sources).

Thank you very much.

Sigo 21:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

One thing to keep in mind is that few of the partially preserved poems have cool names like Haustlöng or Vellekla. Mostly only a stanza is quoted here and another there and then, if we are lucky, some source tells us that they are from a flokkr or a drápa which a particular poet composed on a particular ruler. But often the preservation is very fragmentary and deciding which stanzas belong to the same poem is a judgment call. Assigning names or labels to those poems for convenience of referencing is then another judgment call. If you look at the preservation of Einarr Skúlason's poetry http://www.hi.is/~eybjorn/ugm/skindex/esk.html here] you'll see what I'm talking about. The "poem" which Finnur Jónsson (or some of his predecessors, but I'm betting on Finnur) tentatively labelled Øxarflokkr is just a motley collection of quotes in Snorri Sturluson's Skáldskaparmál and Óláfr Þórðarson's Third Grammatical Treatise. Haukur 06:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the encouragement. Obviously, without you and a few others the mythology articles probably wouldn't be as comprehensive as they are, and your contributions have been valuable in my own research, but I'll definitely help out if I see something that might benefit from additional input. I'm glad you're here, and thanks again!--Cerdic 09:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the article about Old Norse (the North germanic close-to-uniform language spioken 800-1300), one has the following for Old East Norse:

"A change that occurrered in Old East Norse was the change of æi (Old West Norse ei) to e, as in stæin to sten. This is reflected in runic inscriptions where the older read stain and the later stin. There was also a change of au as in dauðr into ø as in døðr. This change is shown in runic inscriptions as a change from tauþr into tuþr. Moreover, the øy (Old West Norse ey) diphthong changed into ø as well, as in the Old Norse word for "island"."

How accurate is this? It is true that the monophthongisation started in a dialect of Old East Norse (probably Jutland in the 10th century), but this doesn't mean that monophthongisation was significant for Old East Norse as a whole, but rather to some dialects in the south in the beginning of the period, and in the end of the period it had probably reached the upper class (but definitely not the vast majority of farming people) of Svealand.

The last sentences in the quote is quite misleading. The au diphthong didn't turn into ø, but rather into a long version of ǫ, in the dialects spoken in Svealand and possibly in Götaland as well. We still have this pronunciation of the old au in many Central and Northern Swedish and East Norwegian dialects. (Of course, the upper class started to use the Danish tongue's ø here, which later spread into the lower classes.) My problem here is that I have no specific source since books usually don't tell the details of how the ordinary people spoke, but rather how (upper class) people wrote since that is firmer facts, naturally. // Hunef 16:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wish I could help but you know more about this than I do! Haukur 16:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I assume you know that in Finland, they old dipthongs are preserved in the Norse dialects spoken there. We know that the Swedish speaking population probably didn't arise before late Middle Ages. I quote the article about the Finland-swedes: "Traditionellt dateras starten på inflyttningen till 1155, då Erik IX ledde ett korståg till Finland. Inflyttningen av svensktalande till fastlandet tog vid i större skala först från mitten av 1200-talet då en koloniseringsvåg sköljde över västra Nyland." Obviously, if there were no larger population of Norse speaking people before late 13th century, the emigrating swedes (mainly from Svealand) performing landnám in southewestern Finland must have brought with them the diphthongs. Thus, the diphthongs must have survived in Svealand — the core of late Middle Age Sweden — at least into 14th century amongst the majority of the local population. (This is throughout the whole Old Norse period as defined in the article.) The popular point of view is that Old Swedish lost the diphthongs in 11th or 12th century, but the Norse dialects in Finland contradict this. I have read a very modest article about this in some monographic book, and one of the arguments for the theory was the one I have given above. What is your opinion? How should one attack this obvious possible flaw of the current version of the article on Old Norse? // Hunef 21:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, if the diphthongs are still there in a dialect of East Norse the change mentioned in the article clearly wasn't universal. You've certainly convinced me. The best thing to do is if you can find the "modest article" again and add a citation to it in the Wikipedia article while changing the appropriate part. Just be careful not to get into original research :) Haukur 09:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it's temting to get into OR sometimes, mainly because you see an obvious missing link (often due to pedagogical or conceptual simplification) which you can explain, either by clear logic or by remmebering you've read it somewhere and that it makes sense. I'll find the monography when going home to Jamtaland next week. It's in the university library there. // Hunef 20:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think I have found a sufficient source for the possibility of preserved Old Central Swedish diphthongs. (Noone doubts that Old South Swedish diphthongs were lost rather early and that Old North Swedish diphthongs have survived even to this day in some remote dialects.) Look at the following document: http://www.hum.au.dk/jysk/publikationer/ordsag12.pdf . Look at p. 33pp, i.e., the paragraph Sprogtræk spredt sydfra via Danmark in the article Sprogkontakt i Sydvestskandinavien by the Jamtlandic dialectologist Vidar Reinhammar. I quote the article (I assume your Danish is sufficient here):

"Man har almindeligvis antaget,at forenklingen har været gennemført så langt op i Sverige som Uppland senest i 1100-tallet.Lennart Moberg gør visse indvendinger mod denne mening.Der findes “spredte skrivemåder med diftong (næsten udelukkende ei )i både svea-og götalandske kilder hele middelalderen igennem ”.Han finder det ikke urimeligt,“at ei-diftongen dialektalt kan være bevaret i Mellemsverige helt ind i 1200-tallet,i det mindste foran dental,den for diftongen mest gunstige position ”. Også Gösta Holm har draget den hurtige udbredelse af diftongforenklingen i tvivl.Det nordlige Norrbotten anses i det væsentlige for at være blevet koloniseret i 1300-tallet –for en stor del fra Mellemsverige,måske Uppland.Den svenske kolonisation i inland antages almindeligvis at være påbegyndt i 1100-tallet og afsluttet omkring 1300.I den sydlige del af Finland menes den i hovedsagen først at være sket efter midten af 1200-tallet.Man regner med,at størstedelen af nybyggerne er kommet fra Svealands og det nordlige Götalands kystbygder, i ringere udstrækning også fra Norrland (det turde især gælde for Österbotten).

Ud fra de nuværende forhold i Norrbotten og Finland (hvor de gamle diftonger er bevaret)slutter Holm,at diftongerne må have været fuldt levende i de egne,kolonisationen udgik fra.I fx Roslagen (i det østlige Uppland)kan diftongforenklingen ikke være nået langt selv i 1200-tallet.Jeg tilslutter mig –med et delvis andet udgangspunkt –Holms mening om diftongforenklingens alder bl.a.i Uppland."

(Note that the guy Gösta Holm - a jamtlander - which is mentioned in the article has compiled an Swedish-Icelandic dictionary together with the icelander Aðalsteinn Daviðsson.)

So, what do you think, Haukur? Should we somehow point this out in the article on Old Norse? It is very clear, in my opinion, that the lack of diphthongs is not a characteristic feature of Old East Norse (vs Old West Norse), but rather a feature of Old Danish (i.e., "Old South Norse", a terminology which some linguists use, as well as "Old North Norse" to which e.g. Jamtlandic is said to belong). Of course, this Danish feature has spread northwards, but in the period prior to 1300AD - i.e. Old Norse period as defined in the article - it was mainly confined to Denmark. (Remember that large parts of what today is Sweden was parts of Denmark - and Norway - back then.) // Hunef 17:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the nomination. I'll fill in my bits and let you know when I have done it. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've done it. Now the fun can start. To quote Robert Burns:

"Oh wad some power the giftie gie us,

To see oursel’s as others see us!"

Will you do the honours? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sure! I'll do it as soon as I can. Haukur 20:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your nomination I accept it. Do I have to place a formal acceptance any where else? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Page updated to today and nomination accepted, thank you. Will you moved it into the correct place please? --Philip Baird Shearer 16:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, and Thanks. -- Philip Baird Shearer 15:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is Arnþisdunja (talk · contribs) your wife? What is her relationship with User:Jimpartame and why is one of her first edits on Wikipedia to ask that I unblock a vandal? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Glad I checked. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

ah yes, this was off the top of my head. I am sure there is a skaldic kenning for "woman" involving leek, maybe you can help me there? dab (ᛏ) 19:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Certainly, without standing up to get a book we can see that a Google search for "lauka Gefn" or "laukaná" yields hits (rímur/skaldic stuff). I've never really thought about why we have kennings like that... I'll try to read up on this when work gets less busy (currently "on call" 24 hours a day). Haukur 20:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Haukurth! I noticed that you had removed the {{sprotected}} tag from the George W. Bush article several times. I agree that the template right now is less obtrusive than it used to have been (and I've participated in the discussion on the template's talk page), but would you mind joining us at the talk page of the article? At Talk:George W. Bush#Too many protect tags!, most people seem to favor just removing the tag overall and leaving it on the talk page, as Jimbo originally proposed on the mailing list a few days ago. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sure, sorry I didn't notice the discussion earlier. Haukur 01:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Now that was an unexpected honor. Thank you! That looks very nice displayed on my otherwise dull userpage (which I'll work on as time goes by). I enjoy your homepage by the way, particularly the section on Old Norse for Beginners. Such knowledge can go a long way to a deeper understanding of mythology. Once I pass the course I'll let you know what I think of the rest of the site ;)

All the best. Cerdic 22:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see you weighed in on Talk:Constantine IX. I agree that WP usage should follow scholarly consensus; but I must ask to reconsider the question of fact involved. Latinized versions of Greek names (Aristotle, John Cantacuzene, Palaeologus) are the majority usage of English scholarship; "literal" transliterations are a minority view, still notable, but more prevalent in the nineteenth century than now. See the Oxford Classical Dictionary or the New Pauly-Wissowa, which is still in the process of publication. Strictly Byzantine references are somewhat less Latinate, chiefly because they do not use Latin sources as much; but Latinization is still usual (as with Averil Cameron.

This differs from Icelandic, because there is a very strong pre-existing tradition of how to deal with Greek. Septentrionalis 01:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused - we're just talking about Byzantines, right? I admit I don't know very much. I'll try a naive little Google Books test.

• 871 pages on Monomachus
• 615 pages on Monomachos
• 388 pages on Monomachus date:1980-2006
• 457 pages on Monomachos date:1980-2006

Looks like the Greek version is picking up steam. Let's try another.

• 2700 pages on Palaeologus
• 1670 pages on Palaiologos
• 1090 pages on Palaeologus date:1995-2006
• 1130 pages on Palaiologos date:1995-2006

Looks like the Latinized version is more common historically in English but that the Greek version is now about as commonly used. Is that a fair conclusion to draw? Haukur 02:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unprotect that template right now if you can. --NicAgent 03:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Greetings. As a recent contributor to the survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI, you may be interested in the following. A mediation sought by Panairjdde resulted in the recommendation that "that proposal two from this page be implemented in the short term, until a consensus can be reached about proposal three". Accordingly, before resuming the editorial process, I am seeking feedback on whether option 2 or 3 of the former survey is more acceptable. Please state (or re-state) your opinion in the follow up survey on Talk:Constantine XI. Thank you for your time, Imladjov 14:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

No one has objected to your claim at Image:Voluspa-atta-fyrstu.jpg, and it's been a month. Wanna delete the image, or should I? ~MDD4696 04:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done. Thanks for reminding me. Haukur 12:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

A question has been raised at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#"Any-purpose" copyrights truly "any-purpose"? about {{AMI}}. Specifically, we can't find where on the website permission is granted, and so aren't sure of the exact parameters of the permission. If you received permission via e-mail, please forward it to permissions at wikimedia dot org, and reproduce it here so we can be sure it satisfies all our terms for "free copyright" (reproducible, modifiable, sellable). I hope you can clarify the situation. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For nominating for adminship a person whom you have disagreements with, being a forerunner and a role model for us. An "Ideal Wikipedian". -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Although I have never heard of you or User:Philip Baird Shearer, still I award you this barnstar as after a really long time have I seen someone doing extraordinarily-examplary work as a Wikipedian. You made my day. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply