Get your own Free Home Page
Some of the problems linguists have had with the Kensington Rune Stone have come from their belief that it was written in Classic Old Swedish. Nielsen, however, presents ample evidence that the correct dialect is from Bohuslan, an area on the east coast of Sweden, near the border with Norway. Hall adds that as this area is near the midway point between Gothland and Bergen, and hence the dialect would be the perfect 'koine' for the members of the expedition to use as it would be the most understandable to all .
"The following examination of the dialect exhibited on the Kensington inscription reveals an uncanny correspondence to the dialect of Bohuslan and nearby Folden:Additonally, Nielsen lists 8 points of phonological similarities between Old Bohuslansk and the KRS, such as...
1. Grotvedt [1969:280 & 1939:16] reports the simplications of dipthongs to monothongs in such words as heim > hem (home), stein > sten (stone) and ey >o (Island). Dodh is given by Grotvedt [1974:56 & 1969:281] . There are man examples of en (one) as per Grodtvedt [1974:55] and of rot (red) per Grotvedt [1970:23]. These same monothongs are used in the Kensington Runestone inscription.
2. Use of the e- dialect as in fiske (fish) as per Grotvedt [1939:167] is also found on the Kensington Runestone.
3. Use of unvoiced k an voiced g as per Grotvedt [1969:296-7, 1939:16] who cites usage of og (and) in the Folden area of Norway. Both ok an og are found on the Kensington inscription."
"1. Use of th a root vowel before rdh, as in fardh (trip) as per Grotvedt [1939:161-2]. This is exactly the heretofore much maligned spelling on the Kensington Runestone....Also, Nielsen finds some 11 similarities in the morphology between the KRS and Old Bohuslansk such as...
7. The lowering of i > e was much in evidence as per Grotvedt [1969:284] such as in havet (the sea) and vedh, but not skip (ship) exactly as found on the Kensington Runestone..."
2. "Use of wi instead of wir (we) in AD 1366 as per Grotvedt [1969:304]. This is also the usage on the Kensington Runestone.It should be noted that the persons cited above were experts in Scandinavian linguistics, and in the case of Grotvedt and Janzen, of the Bohuslan dialect. None wrote on the KRS.
3. Use of ok for at (to), as in ok fiske (to fish), cited by Grotvedt [1974:123] and as also used on the Kensington Runestone.
4. Use of se not sea (see) in AD 1418, recorded by Grotvedt [1969:261, such as in se oeptir (look after) as also used on the Kensington Runestone...
6. Use of man (men) for the plural, as per Janzen [1935:38], which is also used on the Kensington Runestone...
8. Use in AD 1380 of hadhe (had) reported by Grotvedt [1969:217]. This is also the Kensington Runestone spelling.
9. Use of oeptir (after), as per Grotvedt [1969:294], which is also the form on the Kensington Runestone...
11. Use of the past singular fan (found) for a plural subject, as shown by a letter of AD 1403 from Tonsberg, a city just across the fjord from Bohuslan and a trading partner. The writer attempted plural case endings, the form of which show he did not use such endings ins speech, as per Seip [1954:200]. Fan (we found with the we implied) is found on the Kensington Runestone."
It ceratinly appears clear from the evidence that the inscription was written in the particular Scandinavian dialect of Old Bohuslansk. Detailed studies of this dialect were apparently not made until the 1930s and such knowlede as was necessary for the construction of the KRS would not have been available in the 19th century. The logical conclusion is that the writer of the inscription must have been a speaker of Bohuslansk in the 14th century.
I set this out as proof of the authenticity of the Kensington Runestone. It is necessary for opponents of the KRS to either undermine the premise that the inscription is in Old Bohuslansk, or to show that knowledge of conversational Old Bohuslansk was available to the presumed forgers of the stone.
Get your own Free Home Page