This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I only just realized that there is an independent article on Woden. Since this article aims at portraying the common Germanic god, should it maybe be merged here? dab (ᛏ) 10:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
whoops, sorry for the edit conflict. Now, we need a major cleanup, mainly regarding arrangement of the material. Do we want thematic sections, or a clear separation of English/Norse/German? For example, the Wild Hunt may appear under "medieval reception", but also under each geographical variant. dab (ᛏ) 12:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
yes, but there are remaining parts that still show that the article was about eddaic Odin, exclusively. E.g. "Odin's love for wisdom can also be seen in his work as a farmhand for a summer, for Baugi" in the 'shamanic' section would now need a specification 'in the Edda'. dab (ᛏ) 12:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Similar things are scattered across the article, and we'll have to go through the entire text attentively, catching ambiguity. It should be clear at any point if reference is being made to a geographical variant, to the reconstructed Migration age god, or to the variants taken together. Also, within the Scandinavian part, we have to be careful to distinguish Eddaic features, which do dominate the picture, with other information. E.g. the Valknut association is Scandinavian, but not Eddaic. I cannot do this right now -- if you cannot, either, I'll just be back at some later point. regards, dab (ᛏ) 14:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't have the time to do this right now, but we may need a separate "Odin and Jesus" section treating the similarities, including the Nazi ideas. I found a suggestion somewhere concerning Triskaidekaphobia that links Loki to Judas, and the feast in Valhalla where Loki gate-crashes with the Last Supper. dab (ᛏ) 09:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
This needs to be revised to make it clear that, NPD aside, many modern Neo-Pagan/Asatru groups are not Nazis, nor is the comparison between Jesus and Odin solely part of Nazi ideology:
Wagner's association of Odin with Jesus is treated in the Notes of the Seminar Given in 1928–1930 of Carl Gustav Jung. Recently, the German NPD issued T-Shirts labelled Odin statt Jesus ("Odin rather than Jesus") that were popular also among apolitical Neo-Pagans, re-inforcing the Nazi idea of Odin as an " Aryan Jesus".
Also, Wagner should be on the "popular culture" page; I'm not sure about the asteroid, but it seems, if not significant, then certainly interesting. -- Notcarlos 15:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Hey guys, just wanted to point out that in the section mentioning missionaries and the changing of 'wotanstag' to 'mittwoch' in german, there's the assertion that this was done by christian missionaries, but then 2 paras later it says something about the change being 'mysterious' or somesuch. should be resolved, obviously...i'll prolly change it later if i remember, but if not, just wanted to point that out.
--Lanceka (too lazy to log in right now)
A new proposal on representation of Norse mythology names is now up for a vote. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I made a small edit over the recent substantial anon changes [1], but that doesn't mean I endorse them. Some of the changes are positively ungainly, particularly the etymology section wasn't improved. I am tempted to do a deep revert, what do others think? dab (ᛏ) 11:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I just checked the edits in question.
I own Cleasby's Icelandic English Dictionary (of Old Norse), Jan de Vries' Altnordisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, and many other titles. I am an experienced Old Norse to Modern English translator, with linguistic, cultural and historical background in the field. At first glance, Anon's edits look to me to be ALL correct.
This article as it stands has a number of errors in the form of serious misunderstandings and some all-too-common (but excusable) out-of-date information...
Wighson 05:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
When a user found out that this is one of my subspecialties, he asked me to lend my expertise to effect a compromise. Like others, I see a number of problems in this article that seem to be largely the work of User:dbachmann. I notice, too, that more than 90% of this Talk page is taken up discussing or arguing with this same person. I find the following things to be problematic:
So far, compromise is impossible as long as "dab" continues to reject it.
-- Wighson 22:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Support - I am not an admin here, but I fully support the idea of protecting this page. I also note that User:Dbachmann is an administrator of Wikipedia, and hence I also suggest putting a note on the Admin notice board in relation to this. I think that Wighson has a very good point that he is making there, and that what he is saying is accurate, and that this is probably the only way to resolve it, short of going through an ArbCom issue. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I wrote the above comment in the request for protection page, not here. This bit here that I am signing now is my first contribution to the talk page. I think that Wighson should have noted that it was a moved discussion. I am now leaning towards this being an edit war. I have been advised on the protection page by 2 other people that I made the wrong decision. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
_________________
well, "it helps" some. I appreciate your respect, but you seem to be either misunderstanding or dodging my main points. Also, do I sense a little bit of condescension? "not Celtic, but Irish", what on Earth are you talking about? Again, I do think your additions are mostly fine, let's talk about your removals first (we can still talk about the *-ana- suffix later, that's a comparatively minor point).
For the record, this is your edit (a multi-edit diff, including an anon adding a category, and me adding some publication dates, but all substantial changes in the diff are yours).
You removed this without replacement, and without explanation. We can agree that the etymology is obsolete. It may still be notable. Why did you want it gone? Is the statement incorrect? (it's not mine, and I didn't check Agrippa. Did you?). Don't forget that this article is also about Lombardic Godan.
You replaced this entire paragraph with a note of the Celtic cognates. I must say your approach is quite confused here. You off-handedly reject a connection of "wrath" and "poetry" via a Proto-Germanic root for "spiritual excitement". My reference is Rübekeil (2003) (cited on Vates). Note that Adam von Bremen in Wotan id est furor uses the West Germanic form. Old Norse doesn't enter into this discussion. Rübekeil (2003) reconstructs pre-Proto-Germanic *Vatinos (which you have removed). Your statement "Adam von Bremen was wrong" is not universally accepted, at least not regarding root etymology. dab (ᛏ) 14:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
What we are discussing is your own [ unreferenced edits], which have led you repeatedly to remove all others' edits that displeased you. Since I was able to introduce for the first time citations (and with endnotes), the matter in Etymology should have been solved. However, you continued to remove the corrections, going so far as to alter the citations. This alteration in particular violates Wikipedia policy.
You removed this without replacement, and without explanation. We can agree that the etymology is obsolete. It may still be notable. Why did you want it gone? Is the statement incorrect? (it's not mine, and I didn't check Agrippa. Did you?). Don't forget that this article is also about Lombardic Godan.
You replaced this entire paragraph with a note of the Celtic cognates. I must say your approach is quite confused here. You off-handedly reject a connection of "wrath" and "poetry" via a Proto-Germanic root for "spiritual excitement".
My reference is Rübekeil (2003) (cited on Vates). Rübekeil (2003) reconstructs pre-Proto-Germanic *Vatinos (which you have removed).
Note that Adam von Bremen in Wotan id est furor uses the West Germanic form. Old Norse doesn't enter into this discussion.
Your statement "Adam von Bremen was wrong" is not universally accepted, at least not regarding root etymology.
and "poetry". You have a point in as much as Proto-Germanic seems to have variants woð- vs. woþ-,
but Pokorny obviously considers this simple Grammatischer Wechsel. You seem to say that I am the first person on Earth that identifies these roots. Seeing that Pokorny does exactly that without batting an eyelid, I would ask you who, then, separates these roots.
If you look at the Norse picture stones, Odin appears as an ithyphallic warrior.
By all means, I do accept that Viking Age Odin had strong poetic/cultural aspects. But to claim that there is no evidence for obsession, sorcery (shape-shifting), violence or madness is very much mistaken. It is simply a fact that skaldic skills, and prophetic madness,
and battle-fury were not seen as mutually exclusive, but rather as two sides of the same coin. Just look at Egill Skallagrímsson.
I have de Vries in front of me now. It's a 1977 reprint of the 1963 second edition. Wighson will claim that his 2000 reprint of the same is 23 years better than mine, I suppose, but here you are:
unlike in Webster's case, it's a reprint. I hope this puts the matter to rest (and in perspective) for any sane editors watching this. I could have worked on the article in the hour or so I wasted on this puerile BS. dab (ᛏ) 14:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
óðr
I am in full accord with de Vries, and so is Pokorny. "mantische poesie" is excellent. "eifer; stimme, gesang" is in accord too. Nowhere does de Vries claim that these are different roots, that appears to be entirely Wighson's idea. Turning to Proto-Germanic, I have here
(hey, that's even 3 years better than your de Vries reprint, Wighson!) Orel has
Substantivized wōđaz.
No "homonymy" in sight anywhere. We are looking at a single root, forming a single adjective, also used substantivized, with a semantic field that Wighson, but none of our authorities, seem to consider difficult to accept. dab (ᛏ) 08:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
so I presume that some German fluency has stuck. But thanks, I guess. As a 'free' hint from my part, "Forschungsgeschichtliche Leiche" is a metaphor, not an actual bog body claimed as Odin. dab (ᛏ) 18:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
alright, I fleshed out the etymology section, referencing each and every statement (yes, including the " article on graveyards"). If you still want to claim a Proto-Germanic "homonymy of unrelated roots", you'd need to give some unambiguous reference. I somehow hope you realize that I am precisely saying that the original meaning of the name was not simple "fury" ("wrath", "ire", whatever), even though the root is etymologically identical. This is the result of a semantic shift,
and your pointing out the semantic split of odhr in medieval Norse (not in Proto-Germanic) is a valuable illustration of this point. dab (ᛏ) 12:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I found no source glossing the -(a)na- suffix as expressing "lordship" in particular. Orel (2003) treats it simply as a suffix to derive nominal stems. drótinn, dryten he derives from *đruxtīnaz. These are just reflexes of the PIE -(i/o)no- stems, and I haven't seen a claim of an inherent meaning. It is flawed to argue that if *đruxtīz means "people/troops" and *đruxtīnaz means "lord of the people/troops", na must mean lord. With the same justification, you can argue that if English king is from the same root as English kin, logically English g must mean "lord". But I suppose I don't have to point this out to somebody with a "linguistic background". dab (ᛏ) 08:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Is it me or is the etylmology section too far up in the article. Although pertinent it is a largely academic part with little for the average reader. How about putting it further down the article? GraemeLeggett 11:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Courtesy in discourse is a wonderful thing. I am a hypocrite by making this suggestion since I do not have a reputation for being polite, but so be it. The conversation found here that is dealing with etymology and theonyms is edifying, true, but the pissing contest concerned with 'who has the source text with the most gold gilt' is shifting from droll to boring. Try agreeing on which sources to use and then collaborate in editing the actual article. That will do more than seeing who can stack their personal library of scholarly sources to the infinite heights and dragging on with a debate on comparative value of source texts. Use the sources for the tasks that best suit them. There are really not *that* many in the pool of available choices for any given task within northern European studies. Slainté,
-- P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Sarcasm: "A sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt." -- Oxford English Dictionary
I did accept all of the sources brought forward by Whigson. Obviousl, de Vries is a respectable source. But Whigsons insistence that his 2000 reprint of the 1963 2nd edition rendered Pokorny (1959) "obsolete" because it is 40 years "later" was too grotesque for me to keep a straight face.
Did you just blow a fuse or something? How is reverting your edits "violating WP policy" or even "vandalism"? I argued point by point why your edits were mistaken. At this point you are just sulking. And I daresay the "courtesy" remark was directed at you, too. Since you seem to have a fixation with me by now, I'll leave things to others for the time being, but my points made above stand: you may be a "trained historian", but in matters etymological, you are evidently out of your element. "A real Indo-Europeanist would not use Pokorny" mmm-hm, Whigson, that's brilliant, I'll be sure to suggest that to my peers. I haven't seen your 2000 reprint, but my 1977 reprint was certainly unchanged since 1963. So who edited your updated "de Vries 2000", then, and more importantly, what is different in your shiny 2000 edition compared to the original 1963 entry I quoted above? Pokorny (1959) is the baseline communis opinio. The latest word on the matter I am aware of is Ruebekeil (2003), but of course you think this is a "fake reference", or an "article about graveyards". Good one, Whigson, you really had me chuckling there. dab (ᛏ) 21:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I have before me this book:
It is an etymological dictionary of Icelandic. It's a reasonably recent and reasonably respected work. Having only one author it can't help but be a little eccentric and it's somewhat more conservative than one would expect from a book with this publication date. The author, for example, is skeptical about the laryngeal theory - something not seen a lot these days. I'll summarize a few entries from it.
Óðinn: Related to Swedish Oþin, Oþan, Oþun, Old Danish Othin- in compounds, Old Saxon Wôden, Old High German Wuotan, Old English Wôden; < Germanic *wôðana-, related to óður (noun). ... From IE *wât- or *wôt- "being agitated", cf. Latin vâtês.
óður (noun): poetry, poem; agitation; mind; related to Nynorsk od, ode, Old English wôð, Mid High German wôt and Old High German wuot, Latin vâtês, Old Irish fáith and Old Indian api-vâtáyati. Originally meaning something like "intense state of mind" and from there the meanings "inspiration" and "poetry" developed. See óður (2) and Óður (3) ...
óður (adjective): 'agitated, mad; fast, eager'; related to Faroese 'óður', Nynorsk 'od', Old English wôd, Old High German ver-wuot, Gothic 'woþs'; from IE *wât- or perhaps rather *wôt-, cf. Old Indian api-vâtáyati, api-vátati. Perhaps the root originally meant "inspiration" and could then be related to IE *(a)wê- in Icelandic "vindur" and German "wehen"
Óður (name): Hardly related to Gothic woþeis, rather related to óður (noun) and óður (verb) and really another form of the god name Óðinn and with the same meaning. The word occurs as a prefix of human names, as in the Proto Norse inscription Woduride (dative) and it seems to have originally been an u-stem as various god-names like Njörður and Ullur.
Sorry for the modern Icelandicisms. Hope this is intelligeble. Basically he thinks this is all from the same root and doesn't really try to set a time-frame for the semantic developments. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The article shouldn't promote a pet theory or treat conjecture and speculation as fact. All that can really be said is that the óð- in "Óðinn" seems to be related to either or both of the 'óðr' words. Those, in turn, are thought to derive ultimately from the same Indo-European root. The semantic developments are difficult to trace exactly and a general encyclopedia article on Óðinn isn't really the right place to go into details on that. The remark from Adam of Bremen should be mentioned and we should mention that it's not the whole story but explicitly trying to refute it isn't the thing to do here.
As for the suffix -inn, well, it's just a suffix :) It probably didn't have any transparent meaning even in heathen times. The theory that it derives from a word denoting lordship is just barely significant enough to mention in the article and its status should not be exaggerated. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's try to cool down a bit in here. DAB is a nice guy and he's done good work for this article. Refactoring the talk page to make it look like a series of boxing matches between DAB and others is not accurate and not helpful.
I think that D's etymology section is a pretty solid baseline and if W wants to alter it to insert new views or give more prominence to a particular view that's okay but please do it in small well-sourced steps so we can check each of them along the way. A good start would be to write up the relevant entries from your version of Altnordische etymologisches Wörterbuch on this talk page. I also notice that there's an article by the same author named "Über das Verhältnis von Óðr und Óðinn" which we may want to check if de Vries is someone we can agree on as a good source.
Now, personally I think etymological reasoning is often overdone a bit in mythology studies. I can understand that scholars indulge in it for entities which we know very little of except the name. If we just know the name it makes sense to study the name (see Lóðurr for example). But we have a large amount of ancient sources of Odin so the etymology of his name should only form a small part - and not necessarily a starting point - on research into his nature. We shouldn't give etymological conjecture priority over well-preserved myths and legends.
I also feel that too many conclusions are often drawn from the etymology of Týr. The theory that he was originally the highest god and then dethroned by Odin is based entirely on etymology with just about no corraborating evidence.
But what I think is, of course, only marginally relevant. We should base our articles on up-to-date respected scholarship. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I finally got round to looking for the source of Lombardic Godan. It is the 7th c. Origo Gentis Langobardorum [10]. The identification with Wodan is due to Paulus Diaconus [11] [12],
So, Paul basically says Godan is G+wodan, but there is no reason to assume the names are cognate at all, Godan may be an independent theonym, or it may indeed be a contamination of "God" and "Wodan". I'll try to find some literature on this. dab (ᛏ) 14:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I know nothing about etymology, but wiki is not a message board and the merits the various interpretations is not really an issue. If there's two conflicting interpretations with substantial following they should both be in the article. Even some obsolete forms might be notable enough to mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fornadan ( talk • contribs)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I only just realized that there is an independent article on Woden. Since this article aims at portraying the common Germanic god, should it maybe be merged here? dab (ᛏ) 10:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
whoops, sorry for the edit conflict. Now, we need a major cleanup, mainly regarding arrangement of the material. Do we want thematic sections, or a clear separation of English/Norse/German? For example, the Wild Hunt may appear under "medieval reception", but also under each geographical variant. dab (ᛏ) 12:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
yes, but there are remaining parts that still show that the article was about eddaic Odin, exclusively. E.g. "Odin's love for wisdom can also be seen in his work as a farmhand for a summer, for Baugi" in the 'shamanic' section would now need a specification 'in the Edda'. dab (ᛏ) 12:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Similar things are scattered across the article, and we'll have to go through the entire text attentively, catching ambiguity. It should be clear at any point if reference is being made to a geographical variant, to the reconstructed Migration age god, or to the variants taken together. Also, within the Scandinavian part, we have to be careful to distinguish Eddaic features, which do dominate the picture, with other information. E.g. the Valknut association is Scandinavian, but not Eddaic. I cannot do this right now -- if you cannot, either, I'll just be back at some later point. regards, dab (ᛏ) 14:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't have the time to do this right now, but we may need a separate "Odin and Jesus" section treating the similarities, including the Nazi ideas. I found a suggestion somewhere concerning Triskaidekaphobia that links Loki to Judas, and the feast in Valhalla where Loki gate-crashes with the Last Supper. dab (ᛏ) 09:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
This needs to be revised to make it clear that, NPD aside, many modern Neo-Pagan/Asatru groups are not Nazis, nor is the comparison between Jesus and Odin solely part of Nazi ideology:
Wagner's association of Odin with Jesus is treated in the Notes of the Seminar Given in 1928–1930 of Carl Gustav Jung. Recently, the German NPD issued T-Shirts labelled Odin statt Jesus ("Odin rather than Jesus") that were popular also among apolitical Neo-Pagans, re-inforcing the Nazi idea of Odin as an " Aryan Jesus".
Also, Wagner should be on the "popular culture" page; I'm not sure about the asteroid, but it seems, if not significant, then certainly interesting. -- Notcarlos 15:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Hey guys, just wanted to point out that in the section mentioning missionaries and the changing of 'wotanstag' to 'mittwoch' in german, there's the assertion that this was done by christian missionaries, but then 2 paras later it says something about the change being 'mysterious' or somesuch. should be resolved, obviously...i'll prolly change it later if i remember, but if not, just wanted to point that out.
--Lanceka (too lazy to log in right now)
A new proposal on representation of Norse mythology names is now up for a vote. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I made a small edit over the recent substantial anon changes [1], but that doesn't mean I endorse them. Some of the changes are positively ungainly, particularly the etymology section wasn't improved. I am tempted to do a deep revert, what do others think? dab (ᛏ) 11:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I just checked the edits in question.
I own Cleasby's Icelandic English Dictionary (of Old Norse), Jan de Vries' Altnordisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, and many other titles. I am an experienced Old Norse to Modern English translator, with linguistic, cultural and historical background in the field. At first glance, Anon's edits look to me to be ALL correct.
This article as it stands has a number of errors in the form of serious misunderstandings and some all-too-common (but excusable) out-of-date information...
Wighson 05:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
When a user found out that this is one of my subspecialties, he asked me to lend my expertise to effect a compromise. Like others, I see a number of problems in this article that seem to be largely the work of User:dbachmann. I notice, too, that more than 90% of this Talk page is taken up discussing or arguing with this same person. I find the following things to be problematic:
So far, compromise is impossible as long as "dab" continues to reject it.
-- Wighson 22:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Support - I am not an admin here, but I fully support the idea of protecting this page. I also note that User:Dbachmann is an administrator of Wikipedia, and hence I also suggest putting a note on the Admin notice board in relation to this. I think that Wighson has a very good point that he is making there, and that what he is saying is accurate, and that this is probably the only way to resolve it, short of going through an ArbCom issue. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I wrote the above comment in the request for protection page, not here. This bit here that I am signing now is my first contribution to the talk page. I think that Wighson should have noted that it was a moved discussion. I am now leaning towards this being an edit war. I have been advised on the protection page by 2 other people that I made the wrong decision. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
_________________
well, "it helps" some. I appreciate your respect, but you seem to be either misunderstanding or dodging my main points. Also, do I sense a little bit of condescension? "not Celtic, but Irish", what on Earth are you talking about? Again, I do think your additions are mostly fine, let's talk about your removals first (we can still talk about the *-ana- suffix later, that's a comparatively minor point).
For the record, this is your edit (a multi-edit diff, including an anon adding a category, and me adding some publication dates, but all substantial changes in the diff are yours).
You removed this without replacement, and without explanation. We can agree that the etymology is obsolete. It may still be notable. Why did you want it gone? Is the statement incorrect? (it's not mine, and I didn't check Agrippa. Did you?). Don't forget that this article is also about Lombardic Godan.
You replaced this entire paragraph with a note of the Celtic cognates. I must say your approach is quite confused here. You off-handedly reject a connection of "wrath" and "poetry" via a Proto-Germanic root for "spiritual excitement". My reference is Rübekeil (2003) (cited on Vates). Note that Adam von Bremen in Wotan id est furor uses the West Germanic form. Old Norse doesn't enter into this discussion. Rübekeil (2003) reconstructs pre-Proto-Germanic *Vatinos (which you have removed). Your statement "Adam von Bremen was wrong" is not universally accepted, at least not regarding root etymology. dab (ᛏ) 14:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
What we are discussing is your own [ unreferenced edits], which have led you repeatedly to remove all others' edits that displeased you. Since I was able to introduce for the first time citations (and with endnotes), the matter in Etymology should have been solved. However, you continued to remove the corrections, going so far as to alter the citations. This alteration in particular violates Wikipedia policy.
You removed this without replacement, and without explanation. We can agree that the etymology is obsolete. It may still be notable. Why did you want it gone? Is the statement incorrect? (it's not mine, and I didn't check Agrippa. Did you?). Don't forget that this article is also about Lombardic Godan.
You replaced this entire paragraph with a note of the Celtic cognates. I must say your approach is quite confused here. You off-handedly reject a connection of "wrath" and "poetry" via a Proto-Germanic root for "spiritual excitement".
My reference is Rübekeil (2003) (cited on Vates). Rübekeil (2003) reconstructs pre-Proto-Germanic *Vatinos (which you have removed).
Note that Adam von Bremen in Wotan id est furor uses the West Germanic form. Old Norse doesn't enter into this discussion.
Your statement "Adam von Bremen was wrong" is not universally accepted, at least not regarding root etymology.
and "poetry". You have a point in as much as Proto-Germanic seems to have variants woð- vs. woþ-,
but Pokorny obviously considers this simple Grammatischer Wechsel. You seem to say that I am the first person on Earth that identifies these roots. Seeing that Pokorny does exactly that without batting an eyelid, I would ask you who, then, separates these roots.
If you look at the Norse picture stones, Odin appears as an ithyphallic warrior.
By all means, I do accept that Viking Age Odin had strong poetic/cultural aspects. But to claim that there is no evidence for obsession, sorcery (shape-shifting), violence or madness is very much mistaken. It is simply a fact that skaldic skills, and prophetic madness,
and battle-fury were not seen as mutually exclusive, but rather as two sides of the same coin. Just look at Egill Skallagrímsson.
I have de Vries in front of me now. It's a 1977 reprint of the 1963 second edition. Wighson will claim that his 2000 reprint of the same is 23 years better than mine, I suppose, but here you are:
unlike in Webster's case, it's a reprint. I hope this puts the matter to rest (and in perspective) for any sane editors watching this. I could have worked on the article in the hour or so I wasted on this puerile BS. dab (ᛏ) 14:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
óðr
I am in full accord with de Vries, and so is Pokorny. "mantische poesie" is excellent. "eifer; stimme, gesang" is in accord too. Nowhere does de Vries claim that these are different roots, that appears to be entirely Wighson's idea. Turning to Proto-Germanic, I have here
(hey, that's even 3 years better than your de Vries reprint, Wighson!) Orel has
Substantivized wōđaz.
No "homonymy" in sight anywhere. We are looking at a single root, forming a single adjective, also used substantivized, with a semantic field that Wighson, but none of our authorities, seem to consider difficult to accept. dab (ᛏ) 08:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
so I presume that some German fluency has stuck. But thanks, I guess. As a 'free' hint from my part, "Forschungsgeschichtliche Leiche" is a metaphor, not an actual bog body claimed as Odin. dab (ᛏ) 18:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
alright, I fleshed out the etymology section, referencing each and every statement (yes, including the " article on graveyards"). If you still want to claim a Proto-Germanic "homonymy of unrelated roots", you'd need to give some unambiguous reference. I somehow hope you realize that I am precisely saying that the original meaning of the name was not simple "fury" ("wrath", "ire", whatever), even though the root is etymologically identical. This is the result of a semantic shift,
and your pointing out the semantic split of odhr in medieval Norse (not in Proto-Germanic) is a valuable illustration of this point. dab (ᛏ) 12:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I found no source glossing the -(a)na- suffix as expressing "lordship" in particular. Orel (2003) treats it simply as a suffix to derive nominal stems. drótinn, dryten he derives from *đruxtīnaz. These are just reflexes of the PIE -(i/o)no- stems, and I haven't seen a claim of an inherent meaning. It is flawed to argue that if *đruxtīz means "people/troops" and *đruxtīnaz means "lord of the people/troops", na must mean lord. With the same justification, you can argue that if English king is from the same root as English kin, logically English g must mean "lord". But I suppose I don't have to point this out to somebody with a "linguistic background". dab (ᛏ) 08:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Is it me or is the etylmology section too far up in the article. Although pertinent it is a largely academic part with little for the average reader. How about putting it further down the article? GraemeLeggett 11:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Courtesy in discourse is a wonderful thing. I am a hypocrite by making this suggestion since I do not have a reputation for being polite, but so be it. The conversation found here that is dealing with etymology and theonyms is edifying, true, but the pissing contest concerned with 'who has the source text with the most gold gilt' is shifting from droll to boring. Try agreeing on which sources to use and then collaborate in editing the actual article. That will do more than seeing who can stack their personal library of scholarly sources to the infinite heights and dragging on with a debate on comparative value of source texts. Use the sources for the tasks that best suit them. There are really not *that* many in the pool of available choices for any given task within northern European studies. Slainté,
-- P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Sarcasm: "A sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt." -- Oxford English Dictionary
I did accept all of the sources brought forward by Whigson. Obviousl, de Vries is a respectable source. But Whigsons insistence that his 2000 reprint of the 1963 2nd edition rendered Pokorny (1959) "obsolete" because it is 40 years "later" was too grotesque for me to keep a straight face.
Did you just blow a fuse or something? How is reverting your edits "violating WP policy" or even "vandalism"? I argued point by point why your edits were mistaken. At this point you are just sulking. And I daresay the "courtesy" remark was directed at you, too. Since you seem to have a fixation with me by now, I'll leave things to others for the time being, but my points made above stand: you may be a "trained historian", but in matters etymological, you are evidently out of your element. "A real Indo-Europeanist would not use Pokorny" mmm-hm, Whigson, that's brilliant, I'll be sure to suggest that to my peers. I haven't seen your 2000 reprint, but my 1977 reprint was certainly unchanged since 1963. So who edited your updated "de Vries 2000", then, and more importantly, what is different in your shiny 2000 edition compared to the original 1963 entry I quoted above? Pokorny (1959) is the baseline communis opinio. The latest word on the matter I am aware of is Ruebekeil (2003), but of course you think this is a "fake reference", or an "article about graveyards". Good one, Whigson, you really had me chuckling there. dab (ᛏ) 21:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I have before me this book:
It is an etymological dictionary of Icelandic. It's a reasonably recent and reasonably respected work. Having only one author it can't help but be a little eccentric and it's somewhat more conservative than one would expect from a book with this publication date. The author, for example, is skeptical about the laryngeal theory - something not seen a lot these days. I'll summarize a few entries from it.
Óðinn: Related to Swedish Oþin, Oþan, Oþun, Old Danish Othin- in compounds, Old Saxon Wôden, Old High German Wuotan, Old English Wôden; < Germanic *wôðana-, related to óður (noun). ... From IE *wât- or *wôt- "being agitated", cf. Latin vâtês.
óður (noun): poetry, poem; agitation; mind; related to Nynorsk od, ode, Old English wôð, Mid High German wôt and Old High German wuot, Latin vâtês, Old Irish fáith and Old Indian api-vâtáyati. Originally meaning something like "intense state of mind" and from there the meanings "inspiration" and "poetry" developed. See óður (2) and Óður (3) ...
óður (adjective): 'agitated, mad; fast, eager'; related to Faroese 'óður', Nynorsk 'od', Old English wôd, Old High German ver-wuot, Gothic 'woþs'; from IE *wât- or perhaps rather *wôt-, cf. Old Indian api-vâtáyati, api-vátati. Perhaps the root originally meant "inspiration" and could then be related to IE *(a)wê- in Icelandic "vindur" and German "wehen"
Óður (name): Hardly related to Gothic woþeis, rather related to óður (noun) and óður (verb) and really another form of the god name Óðinn and with the same meaning. The word occurs as a prefix of human names, as in the Proto Norse inscription Woduride (dative) and it seems to have originally been an u-stem as various god-names like Njörður and Ullur.
Sorry for the modern Icelandicisms. Hope this is intelligeble. Basically he thinks this is all from the same root and doesn't really try to set a time-frame for the semantic developments. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The article shouldn't promote a pet theory or treat conjecture and speculation as fact. All that can really be said is that the óð- in "Óðinn" seems to be related to either or both of the 'óðr' words. Those, in turn, are thought to derive ultimately from the same Indo-European root. The semantic developments are difficult to trace exactly and a general encyclopedia article on Óðinn isn't really the right place to go into details on that. The remark from Adam of Bremen should be mentioned and we should mention that it's not the whole story but explicitly trying to refute it isn't the thing to do here.
As for the suffix -inn, well, it's just a suffix :) It probably didn't have any transparent meaning even in heathen times. The theory that it derives from a word denoting lordship is just barely significant enough to mention in the article and its status should not be exaggerated. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's try to cool down a bit in here. DAB is a nice guy and he's done good work for this article. Refactoring the talk page to make it look like a series of boxing matches between DAB and others is not accurate and not helpful.
I think that D's etymology section is a pretty solid baseline and if W wants to alter it to insert new views or give more prominence to a particular view that's okay but please do it in small well-sourced steps so we can check each of them along the way. A good start would be to write up the relevant entries from your version of Altnordische etymologisches Wörterbuch on this talk page. I also notice that there's an article by the same author named "Über das Verhältnis von Óðr und Óðinn" which we may want to check if de Vries is someone we can agree on as a good source.
Now, personally I think etymological reasoning is often overdone a bit in mythology studies. I can understand that scholars indulge in it for entities which we know very little of except the name. If we just know the name it makes sense to study the name (see Lóðurr for example). But we have a large amount of ancient sources of Odin so the etymology of his name should only form a small part - and not necessarily a starting point - on research into his nature. We shouldn't give etymological conjecture priority over well-preserved myths and legends.
I also feel that too many conclusions are often drawn from the etymology of Týr. The theory that he was originally the highest god and then dethroned by Odin is based entirely on etymology with just about no corraborating evidence.
But what I think is, of course, only marginally relevant. We should base our articles on up-to-date respected scholarship. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I finally got round to looking for the source of Lombardic Godan. It is the 7th c. Origo Gentis Langobardorum [10]. The identification with Wodan is due to Paulus Diaconus [11] [12],
So, Paul basically says Godan is G+wodan, but there is no reason to assume the names are cognate at all, Godan may be an independent theonym, or it may indeed be a contamination of "God" and "Wodan". I'll try to find some literature on this. dab (ᛏ) 14:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I know nothing about etymology, but wiki is not a message board and the merits the various interpretations is not really an issue. If there's two conflicting interpretations with substantial following they should both be in the article. Even some obsolete forms might be notable enough to mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fornadan ( talk • contribs)