Talk:Anglo-Saxon runes
"The Anglo-Saxon alphabet is one of the runic alphabets" - is there a list of runic alphabets out there we need to link to or be aware of? or does this one just qualify as "a runic alphabet" without the quantifier "one of the"?
"Runic alphabet is a group of Germanic languages which are derived off of each other." Is runic alphabet a proper noun now that doesn't need the lead in "A" (A runic alphabet is..)? Also how is an alphabet a group of languages derived off each other?
"The Anglo-Saxons used runes and characters instead only characters like we use today". When exactly did Runes stop being characters and for that matter when did the anglo-saxons start using runes and characters in their runic alphabet? Were they using some of one alphabet and some of another (one being runic, another being characters (which the runes where anyway)?
"The Anglo-Saxon runic alphabet was called Futhorc; it was named after an elderman named Futhark." Well.. Its nice that we finally get to the name of the article, which up to this point I thought was Anglo-Saxon alphabet, but since we haven't had a sentence without an issue here so far, I guess combining two sentences into one here is to be expected. And what is an elderman? an old guy?
"Futhorc contains 24 runes; five extras are used at the end to supplement the vowel sounds." 24 or 29? or is it 19+5 =24?
And thats the first paragraph.. with every sentence needing work. I can't even look at the second paragraph.. --Creol(talk) 06:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think en:Runic script probably is a good place to start; note: as usual, we do not have most of these pages here. --Eptalon (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- actually, given the subject, en:Anglo-Saxon runes would be better place to import and completely replace this article with a translated version. it is the actual topic and not what the topic falls under after all. --Creol(talk) 06:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Today, about 6500 runes are known, these can be grouped as either "alphabetic", standing for a concept, or a number; note that writing direction can be left to right, or right to left, this can change with each line. There is old futhorc, new futhoc (anglo-saxon, and old norse), there are a few scripts from theMiddle Ages, Note also: "Classical runes" were not used for day-to-day communication, all we have are some inscriptions, and some charms/magic spells. See en:Ruthwell Cross, en:Franks Casket, en:Nordendorf fibulae, en:Golden Horns of Gallehus, en:Egils saga for the examples of rune use; Beginning with the 17th century, runes were in use again, mainly for nationalistic or porpaganda purposes; Asatru uses runic script occasionally, Unicode cotains some runes, from positions 16A0 to 16FF. --Eptalon (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have provided a stub, based on other wiki articles. First paragraph rewritten, second paragraph thrashed - yes, what it says its true, but useless without the respective image. Feel free to extend. --Eptalon (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Today, about 6500 runes are known, these can be grouped as either "alphabetic", standing for a concept, or a number; note that writing direction can be left to right, or right to left, this can change with each line. There is old futhorc, new futhoc (anglo-saxon, and old norse), there are a few scripts from theMiddle Ages, Note also: "Classical runes" were not used for day-to-day communication, all we have are some inscriptions, and some charms/magic spells. See en:Ruthwell Cross, en:Franks Casket, en:Nordendorf fibulae, en:Golden Horns of Gallehus, en:Egils saga for the examples of rune use; Beginning with the 17th century, runes were in use again, mainly for nationalistic or porpaganda purposes; Asatru uses runic script occasionally, Unicode cotains some runes, from positions 16A0 to 16FF. --Eptalon (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- actually, given the subject, en:Anglo-Saxon runes would be better place to import and completely replace this article with a translated version. it is the actual topic and not what the topic falls under after all. --Creol(talk) 06:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)