This is certainly the most compelling hypothesis on the text I've come across. Clear, logical and based on facts from cultural knowledge and the primary sources. Looking forward to the paper!
Very interesting. I really like the approach of declaring the criteria/guidelines upfront and limiting the degree of speculation in the interpretations.
I found dr Nordströms reaction to your name rather amusing. Maybe you actually know each other but it seemed more as if she recognised it because had seen your work. It would be funny if a linguist in Frankfurt and and archeologist in Uppsala were connected by a TH-cam channel.
I really like that you interpret more thougths into the Rök stone, Williams was a bit byas towards a certain view and dont were open to all interpretation possibilities.
I would love to hear William's thoughts on this interpretation, both sides are very compelling! But to be frank (altough I have no linguistic training at all), William's interpretation is just so wholesome and beautiful
What if maering could be conected to the frankish royal house maerovingian? They aledgely were the ofspring of a sea monster. Charles the Great lived in the early 800s, when the Rök Stone was carved. Could this be a stone posing opposition to emepror Charles the Great an the Christian and frankish maerovingians?
Is it possible back then that people had bad grammar or mispelled words (like today including me) or would they have used a scribe who was more literate?
A question to dr Nordström: I assume that the bold letters in the red text (where you compare the Rök stone with Ynglingatal) are meant to highlight the alliteration, but that's so, why is the o in 'forðum' bold and not the o in 'ofsa' in the first fjärding (sorry, don't know the English word)? I might be way off, but I've been taught that it's the first stressed syllable of the second half of the fjärding that has the alliteration with one or both of the stressed syllables of the first half. Am I misunderstanding something here?
@@jackienordstrom8072 Tack för snabbt svar! Nu behöver jag inte göra om mina verser på fornyrðislag 🙂 Väldigt spännande föreläsning om Rökstenen, förövrigt!
People are the same no matter when and where. The interpretations may be simple or way out there. Everybody has their own style and form of creativity even back then. People today interpret the Bible differently. The myths back then may have been interpreted in a variety of ways. I've heard "an imaginative interpretation of Shakespeare." And like art. So your interpretation may be just as valid as anybody else's.
I am just grateful content like this is available on the strange world of the internet.
This is certainly the most compelling hypothesis on the text I've come across. Clear, logical and based on facts from cultural knowledge and the primary sources.
Looking forward to the paper!
Wonderful lecture. All very fascinating. Thank you to Dr. Nordstrom, and Dr. Crawford for this episode.
Very interesting, thank you. I would also like to thank for not rushing it into a shorter format.
Very interesting. I really like the approach of declaring the criteria/guidelines upfront and limiting the degree of speculation in the interpretations.
Love your rethinking of this text and the riddles in it, Dr. Nordstrom. Thank you so much for sharing your expertise with us!
Amazing!
Very interesting. Compelling argumentation. Thank you.
Thank you for this wonderful reading doctors!
We visited in a runestone in the middle of a field for sheep in Gotland. It was surreal experience.
This was brilliant. Jackie Nordström's suggestions seem very solid.
This was gripping beginning to end! What a fascinating set of ideas.
Such an interesting interview, thank you both! Looking forward to reading your paper, Dr. Nordström.
I found dr Nordströms reaction to your name rather amusing. Maybe you actually know each other but it seemed more as if she recognised it because had seen your work. It would be funny if a linguist in Frankfurt and and archeologist in Uppsala were connected by a TH-cam channel.
@@danvernier198 it's a small world 😊
Thank you do much for this.
I really like that you interpret more thougths into the Rök stone, Williams was a bit byas towards a certain view and dont were open to all interpretation possibilities.
I would love to hear William's thoughts on this interpretation, both sides are very compelling! But to be frank (altough I have no linguistic training at all), William's interpretation is just so wholesome and beautiful
Hej Jackie, hälsar från Goethe-Universitet, och hälsar tillbaka från Gerd Carling. :-)
Best interpretation of the Rök Stone I have heard so far.
What if maering could be conected to the frankish royal house maerovingian? They aledgely were the ofspring of a sea monster. Charles the Great lived in the early 800s, when the Rök Stone was carved. Could this be a stone posing opposition to emepror Charles the Great an the Christian and frankish maerovingians?
mogmeni - mog meni - later: menige allmogi.
@formathistoria You guys really should discuss your theory!
Is it possible back then that people had bad grammar or mispelled words (like today including me) or would they have used a scribe who was more literate?
Varinn was highly literate. I only recall two spelling errors: faþiR instead of faþir and uaim instead of huaim
@@jackienordstrom8072 Thank you! And I enjoyed the presentation. 😊
@@jackienordstrom8072P.S. It sounds like they were much smarter and more educated than people may give them credit for.
A question to dr Nordström: I assume that the bold letters in the red text (where you compare the Rök stone with Ynglingatal) are meant to highlight the alliteration, but that's so, why is the o in 'forðum' bold and not the o in 'ofsa' in the first fjärding (sorry, don't know the English word)? I might be way off, but I've been taught that it's the first stressed syllable of the second half of the fjärding that has the alliteration with one or both of the stressed syllables of the first half. Am I misunderstanding something here?
Hi! I think you are right there. In the manuscript the o in ofsa is highlighted I believe. Must have been a mixup in the presentation
@@jackienordstrom8072 Tack för snabbt svar! Nu behöver jag inte göra om mina verser på fornyrðislag 🙂 Väldigt spännande föreläsning om Rökstenen, förövrigt!
People are the same no matter when and where. The interpretations may be simple or way out there. Everybody has their own style and form of creativity even back then. People today interpret the Bible differently. The myths back then may have been interpreted in a variety of ways. I've heard "an imaginative interpretation of Shakespeare." And like art. So your interpretation may be just as valid as anybody else's.
Thousend ruinstones on Sweden, just one brocken on Finland. I want find here one
cool!
Öhm. A bit of audio editing could go a long way.