Talk:Tune stone

Norse history and culture Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norway

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles

Ottar Grønvik interpretation[edit]

Article needs a discussion of the Ottar Grønvik interpretation regarding the funeral feast. There is a listing of his interpretation of the final section of the runic text as "Three daughters made a good funeral feast as the best loved of the inheritors" in The Norsemen in the Viking Age at page 50, but someone familiar with his text needs to provide Grønvik's interpretation for the article. See the note on page 53 of Norwegian Rrunes and Runic Inscriptions which discusses articles and books regarding Grønvik's interpretation of the Tune stone. Deanlaw (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Runic letters[edit]

Could someone please add the inscription as it appears on the stone, in Runic? Thank you! CodeCat (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The interpretation of Wiwaz is incorrect[edit]

Guys, the way that line is written is intentionally misleading in that it cites Antonsen 2002:126-7 for the interpretation of Wiwaz (which it doesn't) and Worduride (which it does). Antonsen specifically doesn't remark on Wiwaz because it's obscure. Moreover, it cannot be derived from the PIE root *h₁weg^wh- because it has an i/ī in Wiwaz (Runic i < PIE *i, Runic ī < PIE *ei or *iH. There's no *i in the root and thus it can't resolve to Wiwaz. Furthermore, there wouldn't be a loss of occlusion in the labiovelar, so we'd expect a Runic *wegwaz or vel. sim. I will add a citation needed for the Wiwaz interpretation. Vindafarna (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vindafarna (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]