[gothic-l] pRe: Runic Influences

[B. Gendler]

----------
>From: MCLSSAA2 at fs2.mt.umist.ac.uk

> --- In gothic-l at egroups.com, Bertil Häggman <mvk575b at t...> wrote:
>> Most probably the Latin alphabet could be seen as
>> the major influence on the establishment of the futhark. ...
>
> Parhaps someone from near the Baltic went to Italy to sell amber, and
> there he learned a North Italian alphabet to help him to record his
> transactions, and then he went straight back to the north.

I agree that this is the most probable situation, though I would not be
quite so sure what they were trading. It is not that far of a trek through
Germania to North Italy. People have travelled much further in the name
of trade and raiding.

> I seem to remember reading many years ago that:-
>
> (1) The runes look most like versions of the alphabet that were used
> in North Italy, rather than the Roman version.

I also agree that the North Italic script is the closest to the runestaves,
and most probable ancestor of them, as I have expressed in previous posts.

If we compare the letters themselves, we find the runesatves closer to the
NI than Latin. This is a short run down, not a detailed analysis, because I
have to run to work soon. You can follow along by checking the chart on
page 8 of Elliott's _Runes_.

F could be either Latin or NI.
U has a near exact parallel in NI but is upside down compared to Latin, and
skewed to the side to boot.
Th Could be a simplified NI letter or a modified Latin D.
A Has an exact match in NI, but is different from the Latin.
R Looks more like Latin, but some runic forms look just like an NI form.
< Same as both Latin and NI
X Exists in Latin, but with a different sound value, It has been proposed
that this is a Germanic pictograph letter.
W has letters vaguely similar in NI, but no corresponding Latin letter.
H looks much closer to the NI forms.
N looks closest to an NI form which has a line coming out of one side, the
runic form carries the skewed line through the stave, no Latin form is
similar.
I could be either
G is probably from a Germanic pictograph.
E same as G
P looks closer to the NI, though no forms look that close, especially the
Latin forms, which are way off.
Z same as P.
S looks much more like the Etruscan and NI than Latin
T has an exact match in NI but not Latin.
B could easily be either NI or Latin.
E looks like neither, but the NI scripts have forms lying down, like the
runic form, where the Latin is still upright.
M looks much more like an NI form
L has an exact parrallel in NI, but is upside down compared to Latin.
N is probably a Germanic pictograph, but also looks like an Etruscan letter
with a different sound form.
D same as N, but looks similar to an NI form, not an Etruscan one.
O has an exact match in NI, but the Latin form does not have the bottom
lines.

Further evidence for an NI origin can be seen in the variable direction of
runic writing, which is like the NI scripts. Latin had a codified direction,
and we would expect derivatives off it to follow suit.

 > (2) Someone found a Germanic helmet that had belonged to someone
> called Haryawulfaz Hathuwulfingaz, and he had scratched his name into
> it in an Italian-type alphabet.

Back to my notes, this helmet is discussed on page 10 of Elliott's book
_Runes_, the same page as his mention of NI writing on sticks.

To summarise and close, I think that the runestaves were developed from
the North Italic scripts, with some influence by the Latin script either
during or later than their original invention. It is also possible that the
creator knew both scripts, or that the runestaves were developed from an
unattested NI form which was starting to show Latin influences.

Gendler.

http://www.panikon.com
gendler at panikon.com



You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.
Homepage: http://www.stormloader.com/carver/gothicl/index.html