The Ordering of the Futhark
In: Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren GermanistikSearch for other papers by Sandra Straubhaar in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Douglas Simms in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Collin Brown in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Marc Pierce in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
This article focuses on the ordering of the runic alphabet. It is well-known that the runic alphabet goes f-u-th-a-r-k, and that this ordering differs sharply from that of all of the contemporary alphabets. This is particularly surprising, as it is difficult to understand why the inventor(s) of the runic alphabet would alter the ordering of the possible source alphabet(s) so dramatically. In this article, we evaluate some of the main theories proposed to account for this ordering, and then present our own solution, which holds that this ordering is primarily a pedagogical device. We argue that the furthark employs three types of pedagogical tricks: (1) futhark is easily pronounceable as a quasi-word, whereas the other sequences (a-b-c-d-e-f-g, alpha-beta-gamma-delta-epsilon, etc.) are not; (2) each rune in the futhark is associated with a noun in which it is found, which aids memorization; and (3) the order of the rune-associated nouns has been divided into three thematic groups (ættir), each headed by a god or a dreaded force of nature, and within each ætt, the meanings of the rune-names fall into thematic divisions, again making the futhark as a whole easier to memorize.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Barnes, Michael P., 1998. “The Transitional Inscriptions”, in: Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung: Abhandlungen des Vierten Internationalen Symposiums über Runen und Runeninschriften in Göttingen vom 4.–9. August 1995, ed. Klaus Düwel in conjunction with Sean Nowak, Berlin.
-
Bauer, Alessia, 2003. Runengedichte: Texte, Untersuchungen und Kommentare zur gesamten Überlieferung. Wien.
-
Clunies Ross, Margeret, 1990. “The Anglo-Saxon and Norse ‘Rune Poems’: A Comparative Study”, in: Anglo-Saxon England 19, 23–39.
-
Dickins, Bruce, 1915. Runic and Heroic Poems of the Old Teutonic Peoples, Cambridge.
-
Düwel, Klaus, 1983. Runenkunde, 2d edition, Stuttgart.
-
Fairfax, Edmund, 2014. “The Twisting Path of Runes from the Greek Alphabet”, in: North- Western European Language Evolution 67, 173–230.
-
Gordon, E. V. & Taylor, A. R., 1957. An Introduction to Old Norse, 2d edition, Oxford.
-
von Grienberger, Theodore, 1896. “Die germanischen runennamen I. Die gotischen buchstabennamen”, in: Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 21, 185–224.
-
Griffiths, Alan, 1999. “The Fuþark (and Ogam) Order as a Key to Origin”, in: Indogermanische Forschungen 104, 164–210.
-
Klingenberg, Heinz, 1973. Runenschrift, Schriftdenken, Runeninschriften, Heidelberg.
-
Liberman, Anatoly, 2009. “Rune: The Word and the Thing. Latin elementa and the Scandinavian futhark”, in: Studi anglo-norreni in onore di John S. McKinnell, eds. Maria E. Ruggerini and Veronka Szoke, Cagliari.
-
Liberman, Anatoly, 2016. In Prayer and Laughter, Moscow.
-
Liestøl, Aslak, 1948. “Det norske runediktet”, in: Maal og Minne 39, 65–71.
-
Mailhammer, Robert & Vennemann, Theo 2019. The Carthaginian North: Semitic Influence on early Germanic, Amsterdam.
-
Mees, Bernard, 1999. “The Celts and the Origins of the Runic Script”, in: Studia Neophilologica 71, 143–155.
-
Mees, Bernard, 2006. “Runes in the First Century”, in: Runes and their Secrets: Studies in Runology, eds. Maria Stoklund et al., Copenhagen.
-
Mees, Bernard, 2014. “The Etymology of rune”, in: Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 136, 527–537.
-
Murphy, G. Ronald, 2013. Tree of Salvation: Yggdrasil and the Cross in the North, Oxford.
-
Pierce, Marc, Boas, Hans C, & Roesch, Karen 2015. “The History of Front Rounded Vowels in New Braunfels German,” in: Germanic Heritage Languages in North America: Acquisition, Attrition, and Change, eds. Janne Bondi Johannessen and Joseph C. Salmons, Amsterdam.
-
Powell, Barry, 2009. Writing: Theory and History of the Technology of Civilization, Oxford.
-
Robertson, John, 2012. “How the Germanic Futhark Came from the Roman Alphabet”, in: Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies 2, 7–25.
-
Schwink, Frederick W., 2000. “The Velar Nasal in the Adaptation of the Runic Alphabet”, in: American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 12, 235–249.
-
Seebold, Elmar, 1993. “Fuþark, Beith-Luis-Nuon, Ha-Lamedh, Abgad und Alphabet. Über die Systematik der Zeichenaufzahlung bei Buchstaben-Schriften”, in Sprachen und Schriften des antiken Mittelraums. Festschrift für Jürgen Untermann, eds. Frank Heidermanns, Helmut Rix, and Elmar Seebold, Innsbruck, 411–444.
-
Shippey, T. A., 1976. Poems of Wisdom and Learning in Old English, Totowa, NJ.
-
Simms, Douglas P. A., 2017. “The Old English Name of the S-rune and ‘sun’ in Germanic”, in: Journal of Germanic Linguistics 29, 26–49.
-
Skeat, Walter W., 1890a. “The Order of Letters in the Runic ‘Futhorc’”, in: The Academy 38, 477.
-
Skeat, Walter W., 1890b. “The Order of Runes in the Futhork”, in: The Academy 38, 530.
-
Szöke, Veronka, 2018. “The Norwegian Rune Poem in Context: Structure, Style and Imagery”, in: L’Analisi Linguistica e Letteraria 1, 5–31.
-
Thurber, Beverly, 2020. “Review of Mailhammer and Vennemann 2019, in: The Linguist List 31: 1696 (electronic publication).
-
Vennemann. Theo, 2006. “Germanische Runen und phönizisches Alphabet”, in: Sprachwissenschaft 34, 367–429.
-
Vennemann. Theo, 2009. “Zur Reihung der Runen im älteren Futhark”, in: Analecta Septentrionalia: Beiträge zur nordgermanischen Kultur- und Literaturgeschichte, eds. Wilhelm Heizmann et al, Berlin.
-
Watkins, Calvert, 1995. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics, Oxford.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1761 | 541 | 27 |
| Full Text Views | 96 | 20 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 210 | 52 | 0 |
The Ordering of the Futhark
In: Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren GermanistikSearch for other papers by Sandra Straubhaar in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Douglas Simms in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Collin Brown in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Marc Pierce in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
This article focuses on the ordering of the runic alphabet. It is well-known that the runic alphabet goes f-u-th-a-r-k, and that this ordering differs sharply from that of all of the contemporary alphabets. This is particularly surprising, as it is difficult to understand why the inventor(s) of the runic alphabet would alter the ordering of the possible source alphabet(s) so dramatically. In this article, we evaluate some of the main theories proposed to account for this ordering, and then present our own solution, which holds that this ordering is primarily a pedagogical device. We argue that the furthark employs three types of pedagogical tricks: (1) futhark is easily pronounceable as a quasi-word, whereas the other sequences (a-b-c-d-e-f-g, alpha-beta-gamma-delta-epsilon, etc.) are not; (2) each rune in the futhark is associated with a noun in which it is found, which aids memorization; and (3) the order of the rune-associated nouns has been divided into three thematic groups (ættir), each headed by a god or a dreaded force of nature, and within each ætt, the meanings of the rune-names fall into thematic divisions, again making the futhark as a whole easier to memorize.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1761 | 541 | 27 |
| Full Text Views | 96 | 20 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 210 | 52 | 0 |