Skip to main content
Linguistics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

3
  • this doesn't appear to actually address the question. Additionally is there actually any evidence of "futhark" being used to refer to the runic alphabets (rather than just it being the start of abecedaries) in the Elder or Younger Futhark periods? Commented Feb 6, 2024 at 15:43
  • It works under the assumption that the OP is opinionated, and so, incidently, are you. Of course it addresses the OP. a) some call the futhark an alphabet, so it is in scope. b) this is wrong, and here is why. You cannot disagree with the first point, because it is a common fact, and you cannot disagree with the second point without addressing it, since it's sourced and rounded off by my own interpretation, but you haven't. You could agree with it, indicating that it renders the first point irrelevant, but that appears bikeshedding to the max, because you fail to notice the bigger implication. Commented Feb 6, 2024 at 17:00
  • [cont.] Your questioning appears to be irrelevant, as we have scarcely any running text in Elder Futhark, but definite evidence of the futhark sequence. Younger Futhark and Futhorc are not immediately relevant to my interest. My point was simply that the James Gleick and BrianZ alike are likely in the group of people who would call it alphabet. You, @Tristan, are in no position to disagree with that, obviously. Commented Feb 6, 2024 at 17:50