More Linguistic Evidence

additional linguistic proofs of the stone's authenticity

Nielsen finds some 26 other points which the experts at various times have thought were incorrect in the Kensington Stone, but which his researches show to be valid usage. For the sake of simplicity, I have summarized 8 of the points below to show an example of his work:

Dagsrise: reported, by K. M. Nielsen and Wahlgren to not have been in use before 1599, is found in a book of 14th century proverbs.

Loeger: used by from to support the idea that the stone was linguistically invalid is found in Magnus Eriksons Landslag of 1350, and the Danish leger is found in Old Danish Dictionar Supplement vol. 5

Og: instead of ok is claimed by Moltke as a blunder. However og is found to be in use (by Grotvedt) the Bohuslan region as of 1390.

Norrmen: was claimed by Wahlgren to be a modernism because of the doubled rr, and the ending men instead of the 'correct' Old Swedish moen. The doubled rr was in use sporadically throughout old Swedish, and in particul the rr on Norr can be traced as far back as 1150. Goedtvelt has many examples of the use of men in Old Bohuslansk.

"A forger, who would have had access to Rydqvist [1850-1883] and other available old texts would have used nor (north), the normal spelling of the word. The use of the rare norr (north) would have been found in only one book from AD 1882." (Nielsen)

Wi war ok fiske: was thought by Jansson, Moltke, Andersen, and Wahlgren as an incorrect and modern use of ok for at, but the Dictionary of Medieval Swedish has an example of ok for at from 1350AD.

Paa: according to critics should have been spelled pa, and Flom stated that paa could only be used as upon, rather than on (as in the KRS). Paa (on) was found in a Danish letter from 1354, as well as a provencial parliment record of 1349, and in a work from 1375.

Wi war (we were), wi hadhe (we have), wi kom (we came): - the use of the plural (wi) with a third person past singular verb is attacked by Karl Martin, K.M. Nielsen, Wahlgren, Moltke, Andersen, and Jannson. But Siep shows that singular verbs were used for plural subjects before 1300, and even more inthe early 14th century. Vi Var is found in the Codex Runicus of Scania Law circa 1300, and wi hadhe is shown in the Codex Oxenstiernianus of 1385. Moltke did finally concede to the usage.

Fardh : is thought to be incorrect by Moltke and Andersen as the vowel before rdh should be an oe and not an a, however Grotvedt

"reported that in Old Bohuslansk an a before rdh did not become an oe and he actually gives fardh as an example.... The spelling of fardh (travel) seems to confirm the authenticity of the Kensington Runestone, since the obvious and well known spelling foerdh (trip) was not chosen. Instead, a form, fardh (trip) found only in Bouslan is used, a usage which has escaped all other investigators of the Kensington Runestone." (Nielsen)

This is less than a third of instances where Nielsen shows that supposedly knowledgeable linguists are wrong about the KRS - some arguements were far more complex, and others so esoteric that I could not properly follow them. If we assume a forger, we must also assume that (unless he was very lucky) his knowledge of the 14th century language was greater than these experts.
Taking a look through Nielsen's examples showing the dialect of the KRS to be Old Bohuslansk, I noted that of the 8 pieces of linguistic evidence I gave, some 5 were also to be found in the Old Bohuslansk examples. Thus, the linguistics given (at least for these 5) would appear to be correct for 14th century Bohuslansk, further limiting the 'correctness' to a specific dialect.
This should not, of course, invalidate the other three from being Old Bohuslansk as well. It is not clear to me wether the dialect is derived particularly from Old Swedish or Old Norwegian - its location on the border between the two states would suggest influence from both (as well as perhaps infuence from Skane south along the coast which was a Danish provence early in the 14th century). Variances within these languages could also well be expected in Bohuslansk.

To summarize:

1. A number of arguments against the stone have been shown, in light of more recent evidence, to have been incorrect, or at best inconclusive.

2. As the strength of such arguments have been undermined, the conclusions of linguists based on these arguments must also be called into question.

3. Dr. Nielsen cites some 26 examples where the linguistics of the KRS were thought to be signs of forgery (of which I have given 8 as examples), but which can now be shown to be correct to the 14th century, and in many cases to the Old Bohuslansk dialect in particular.

4. A skilled forger having a good working knowledge of 14th century Scandinavian languages probably would not have attempted some of the variations which 'fooled' the experts into thinking this was a forgery - certainly more common usages would have been available - and likely could not have done so without knowledge revealed in the 20th century.

5.A less learned forger trying to imitate the voice of the time might actually have a better chance at success, esp if he knew Modern Bohuslansk. However his chance at getting every questionable instance correct (at least at some arguable level) must receed with each new attempt. Nielsen gives us 26 such instances in the KRS which linguistic experts considered questionable, and gives solid attestation for each of them. The possibility of an imitative forger hitting on each of them, even with the best of luck, must be quite small.

6. Likewise there would be the possibility of such a forger making an unassailbly bad error - simply missing completly - at some point in his attempt. No such glaring error can be shown in the KRS.

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page