Talk:Odin/Archive 2

Woden

I only just realized that there is an independent article on Woden. Since this article aims at portraying the common Germanic god, should it maybe be merged here? dab (ᛏ) 10:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, it was created in order to "reclaim him for the English". I have left a merger note on the talkpage, if a better reason was not provided. I have intended to merge the two for some while but haven't got around.--Wiglaf 11:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

doh, sorry, I failed to check the Talk page. However, the present article is growing long, and we may have to export some stuff. The popculture-references should be the first to go , though, we can do a List of references to Odin in popular culture. dab (ᛏ) 12:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great idea! I think this article needs a lot of work, anyway.--Wiglaf 12:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

whoops, sorry for the edit conflict. Now, we need a major cleanup, mainly regarding arrangement of the material. Do we want thematic sections, or a clear separation of English/Norse/German? For example, the Wild Hunt may appear under "medieval reception", but also under each geographical variant. dab (ᛏ) 12:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My take is that Odin was perceived by the believers as one and the same, whether they called him Wotan, Wodan, Woden, Oden or Odin. Likewise modern believers seem to use the form they like most, without implying a division into several gods. So, I think the best way would be to have themes that start with a link to a "main article" on the theme. For instance, I have added a part on the Battle of Lena and I think it would be better to have it together with a more extensive discussion on later beliefs in a separate article.--Wiglaf 12:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

yes, but there are remaining parts that still show that the article was about eddaic Odin, exclusively. E.g. "Odin's love for wisdom can also be seen in his work as a farmhand for a summer, for Baugi" in the 'shamanic' section would now need a specification 'in the Edda'. dab (ᛏ) 12:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the best thing would be to have this article as the "main article" and then spin off both geographical and thematic subarticles. We could make a navigation table as well.--Wiglaf 13:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(And Category:Vodinaz?) -- let's think this over, first, cautiously, reviewing the material we have. It would mean we go back to a Woden article, which I have just merged here. I have exported the pop culture references, and the list of kenningars, this should give us some breathing space for now. dab (ᛏ) 13:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was just considering your suggestion.--Wiglaf 15:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you see, the "worship part" is supposed to be about Odin/Woden/Wotan summarily, so we shouldn't say remnants are preserved in Scandinavian folklore, since there are also traces in English and German folklore.dab (ᛏ) 14:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My mistake. I misunderstood the paragraph since a similar line exists in Scandinavian folklore.--Wiglaf 15:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Similar things are scattered across the article, and we'll have to go through the entire text attentively, catching ambiguity. It should be clear at any point if reference is being made to a geographical variant, to the reconstructed Migration age god, or to the variants taken together. Also, within the Scandinavian part, we have to be careful to distinguish Eddaic features, which do dominate the picture, with other information. E.g. the Valknut association is Scandinavian, but not Eddaic. I cannot do this right now -- if you cannot, either, I'll just be back at some later point. regards, dab (ᛏ) 14:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We'll take it slowly. This article is a jungle.--Wiglaf 15:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it is :) but it could be very good -- we may have to separate it into sections pointing to main articles. So will we have Woden and Wotan after all? Then, for symmetry, the Scandinavian main article should be at Odin, begging the question: where will we put the summarizing, reconstructing article? At Vodinaz? At Vatinos? These forms are not current at all. Odin (summary)? Odin/Woden/Wotan? difficult, difficult... Let's clean up the jungle first, and see where that leads us :o) dab (ᛏ) 16:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it could be a great article. I have began by cleaning up the intro :).--Wiglaf 19:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jesus and Odin sub-section

I don't have the time to do this right now, but we may need a separate "Odin and Jesus" section treating the similarities, including the Nazi ideas. I found a suggestion somewhere concerning Triskaidekaphobia that links Loki to Judas, and the feast in Valhalla where Loki gate-crashes with the Last Supper. dab (ᛏ) 09:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Pulled from "Modern References"

This needs to be revised to make it clear that, NPD aside, many modern Neo-Pagan/Asatru groups are not Nazis, nor is the comparison between Jesus and Odin solely part of Nazi ideology:

Wagner's association of Odin with Jesus is treated in the Notes of the Seminar Given in 1928–1930 of Carl Gustav Jung. Recently, the German NPD issued T-Shirts labelled Odin statt Jesus ("Odin rather than Jesus") that were popular also among apolitical Neo-Pagans, re-inforcing the Nazi idea of Odin as an "Aryan Jesus".

Also, Wagner should be on the "popular culture" page; I'm not sure about the asteroid, but it seems, if not significant, then certainly interesting. --Notcarlos 15:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the Jesus connection needs to be clearer. However, it clearly said here that the identification goes back to Wagner, who was not a Nazi, so your objection seems unfounded. Also, I don't see where this suggests that "Neo-Pagans are Nazis"? The asteroid belongs on Odin (disambiguation). I don't see how it is more notable than the two dozen other pop culture references. dab (ᛏ) 16:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Gramatically, the phrase "re-inforcing the idea that Nazi" etc. can be read as modifying "apolitical Neo-Pagans" as well as the NPD. Perhaps remove or move the Neo-Pagan reference?

Also, while Wagner himself was not a Nazi (that would have been a trick), his cultural contributions were used by the Nazis as part of their ideology, and his work does "bear the stain," as it were, for many groups. Ultimately while all your objections are valid, you might develop these ideas in separate paragraphs, so that it's absolutely clear there is no connection between these ideas.

And you're right about the asteriod. Mea Culpa. Notcarlos 16:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, I think, and they are valid. Well, part of them, anyway: Wagner may "bear the stain" for some people, but so does Snorri himself, or the whole topic altogether. That's beside the point. We just need to avoid making suggestive statements inadvertently. Now, even the Neo-pagans can be argued to "bear the stain". Below the line, it must be admitted, that there are apolitical and political Neo-pagans. And the political ones typically fall into the categories "green" and "brown". This is not the article to discuss this, of course, but there is a certain connection between Romanticsm, Wagner, the Nazis, Neo-Nazis and the Neo-Pagan "scene" that cannot be denied. We just have to avoid making suggestions that they may be lumped together in any way.

now, this whole article needs revision. Mainly, we need a concept as to how to organize the information already in it. For example, we need to somehow accommodate the temporal and the geographic dimensions. The fact that most information is Norse, while the article aims to be about all variants of the god doesn't make it easier. we need to accommodate

• reconstructed common germanic (Migration age) Wodinaz
• medieval
  • North Germanic Odin
  • West Germanic Woden/Wotan, especially Anglo-Saxon Woden
  • possible Christinan influence before Christianization
  • perception after Christianization, folklore
• "Viking revival", Romanticism, Wagner
• Nazi and Neo-Nazi issues
• 20th century popular culture and Neo-paganism

so for the purpose of the Odin-Jesus connection, I am uncertain whether to discuss it in the modern section, in the medieval section, or in the eddaic section, since it really pervades the whole temporal dimension. I think the best solution will be to discuss the ToC arrangement first, before we address the wording in detail, because the ToC rearrangement will have an impact on the wording anyway. Your suggestions are very welcome. I am not trying to have it "my way" at all, I am genuinely uncertain what is the best way to present you. I would just ask you to rephrase things you find objectionable, rather than just removing information. regards, dab (ᛏ) 17:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, to all. That would be a good article to read, I think. Odin/Jesus is a tough one; there should definitely be some mention of this in the early medieval section, but the best place for this would probably be the Eddas, since this is, if not the primary source, then certainly the most popular for "traditional" interpretations of the god. I'll think about the TOC and comment on that later.

As for the rest, I don't know what I was thinking, pulling that section; it was bad etiquette, I know. Again, mea culpa. Notcarlos 20:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Hey guys, just wanted to point out that in the section mentioning missionaries and the changing of 'wotanstag' to 'mittwoch' in german, there's the assertion that this was done by christian missionaries, but then 2 paras later it says something about the change being 'mysterious' or somesuch. should be resolved, obviously...i'll prolly change it later if i remember, but if not, just wanted to point that out.

--Lanceka (too lazy to log in right now)

Naming convention vote notice

A new proposal on representation of Norse mythology names is now up for a vote. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Mass Page Reversion

I made a small edit over the recent substantial anon changes [1], but that doesn't mean I endorse them. Some of the changes are positively ungainly, particularly the etymology section wasn't improved. I am tempted to do a deep revert, what do others think? dab (ᛏ) 11:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I had come to the same conclusion and hadn't noticed that you were already on the case! I suppose a somewhat agressive un-wikilike zero-tolerance-for-dubious-edits revert policy may be the only way we can ever improve this article. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You all do realize you are confessing to "vandalism" don't you? ;-) I agree with Haukur that it is "aggressive un-wikilike". I vote against this on principle. Wighson 04:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Wighson. That was me here. Yes, I grew frustrated from Dab the Dictator reverting me so I just left. I have better things to do. Castanea dentata 22:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"Birds of a feather..." You are always welcome here, Castanea dentata. We adore sockpuppetry. It makes us smile.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 02:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

Compromise

I just checked the edits in question.

I own Cleasby's Icelandic English Dictionary (of Old Norse), Jan de Vries' Altnordisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, and many other titles. I am an experienced Old Norse to Modern English translator, with linguistic, cultural and historical background in the field. At first glance, Anon's edits look to me to be ALL correct.

This article as it stands has a number of errors in the form of serious misunderstandings and some all-too-common (but excusable) out-of-date information...

Wighson 05:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I just redid the section on Etymology with internal citations and references added at the article's end. (I just finished writing a book, and I didn't know what to do with myself.) --Wighson 07:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Note to all editors

When a user found out that this is one of my subspecialties, he asked me to lend my expertise to effect a compromise. Like others, I see a number of problems in this article that seem to be largely the work of User:dbachmann. I notice, too, that more than 90% of this Talk page is taken up discussing or arguing with this same person. I find the following things to be problematic:

(1) Making up new meanings for Norse Words that contradict their actual meanings in all academically respected Old Norse dictionaries;

(2) Altering dates of cited references, making them appear to be outdated, when in fact they are the preeminent academic reference works used by Old Norse scholars;

(3) Citing instead reference works that really are out of date, even as noted in Wikipedia (Pokorny);

(4) Linking to other internal or external articles that either do not support a statement or to articles that contradict it;

(5) Editing that shows a complete lack of knowledge of Old Norse;

(6) Editing that shows fundamental misunderstanding of linguistics;

(7) Editing that shows fundamental misunderstanding of the English language (confusion of "edition" with "reprint", et al.);

(8) A persistent pattern of wholesale reverting other's edits;

(9) An admission of wholesale revert of the main article, or "blatant vandalism;"

(10) Continued insertion of disputed beliefs and deleting "disputed" message, even after mediation.

So far, compromise is impossible as long as "dab" continues to reject it.

--Wighson 22:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Support - I am not an admin here, but I fully support the idea of protecting this page. I also note that User:Dbachmann is an administrator of Wikipedia, and hence I also suggest putting a note on the Admin notice board in relation to this. I think that Wighson has a very good point that he is making there, and that what he is saying is accurate, and that this is probably the only way to resolve it, short of going through an ArbCom issue. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks on established editors will do nothing except cause discord.

-P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 23:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I wrote the above comment in the request for protection page, not here. This bit here that I am signing now is my first contribution to the talk page. I think that Wighson should have noted that it was a moved discussion. I am now leaning towards this being an edit war. I have been advised on the protection page by 2 other people that I made the wrong decision. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Wighson and Dieter discuss their differences over tea and crumpets

I love this heading! LOL Wighson 20:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

that's all very well (I commend you for citing your sources at once, but adding your references, why did you have to remove a series of other points? regarding "out of date information", Jan de Vries died in 1964. I am not against having your data at all, but why did you have to remove a 2003 theory in favour of an early 20th century one? Also, I am unconvinced about the suffix. De Vries traced the suffix to -*ana, that's fine. But, did de Vries claim that the meaning of the suffix is "lord", or is that your own conclusion? That is unclear from your text. It furthermore strikes me as a bit odd that you seem to consider de Vries' dictionary a "primary source" on par with Snorri. Regarding the semantic split of Old Norse odhr between adjective and noun [2][3], that is certainly worth noting. However, in etymologizing Odin, we are looking at Proto-Germanic, not Old Norse. Old Norse simply inherited the name. odhr (noun+adjective) certainly is from the same root (the Celtic cognate of which you have cut from the text), and in Proto-Germanic, its meaning will have been something compatible with both "ire" and "poetry" (as explained in the section you have cut). Your alleged "fundamental flaw" does not exist, because the semantic split of Old Norse odhr most likely didn't exist in Proto Germanic. If you want to discuss Old Norse connotations and folk etymologies of the name, you may have a point, but not if you want to discuss the actual etymology. Your Old Norse semantic split does not, to the best of my knowledge, exist in West Germanic, and has no bearing on Woden or Wotan. dab (ᛏ) 19:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

_________________

Good questions! I thought I would show you extra respect by addressing each of your comments one by one.

that's all very well (I commend you for citing your sources at once, but adding your references, why did you have to remove a series of other points? regarding "out of date information", Jan de Vries died in 1964.

De Vries, like Cleasby, began a project which others are continuing. By this logic we should never use "Webster's dictionary" because he is long dead. When we call a book by its editor's name, it is one shorthand to avoid writing out the whole title.

Look at the reference. It was published in 2000. It is the fourth edition.

I am not against having your data at all, but why did you have to remove a 2003 theory in favour of an early 20th century one?

See below. It is not a "2003 theory" nor is it new. Nor was it cut.

De Vries puts together all the best research and I am using the most current expanded edition. It represents the state of the art. It is the authoritative such work in the field. In fact it is the only one.

Also, I am unconvinced about the suffix. De Vries traced the suffix to -*ana, that's fine. But, did de Vries claim that the meaning of the suffix is "lord", or is that your own conclusion? That is unclear from your text.

This particular point is not currently under debate. You are the first person whom I have encountered that was unaware of it. Any good work discussing the etymology Norse gods will have it, too.

Anyone should be curious as to why Odin is "Odin" and not "Odr." Old Norse does not place arbitrary ending onto words. Each piece has a value. The ends of words are particularly important, because they tell how it used in the sentence. For example, annarr has twenty-four different endings. Anyone who really knows Old Norse, must learn every one for every word.

I can understand the confusion though. It is a seldom seen participle in Germanic, used for names that apply to Odin. All the Germanic languages have it, thus it is part of the Germanic lexicon. If you have an alternate meaning for the suffix, based on scholarly research, please say where. Bu remember that the suffix does exist.

De Vries defines the suffix as Herr or Führer. In English, these would translate as lord, master, leader. To write out all the synonyms would rather complicate things. To be clear pick one. "Master" implies teaching something, which is a little wrong in the context. "Leader" a little vague. "Lord" fits a religious and mythic context well.

It furthermore strikes me as a bit odd that you seem to consider de Vries' dictionary a "primary source" on par with Snorri.

By definition, primary sources are newspapers, original literature, and dictionaries. This is a dictionary ("Wörterbuch"). Thus it is a primary source.

Regarding the semantic split of Old Norse odhr between adjective and noun [4][5], that is certainly worth noting. However, in etymologizing Odin, we are looking at Proto-Germanic, not Old Norse. Old Norse simply inherited the name. odhr (noun+adjective)

No, they are two entirely separate words, with very different meanings. They are homophones. It is something of a coincidence that in Old Norse, they take the same form. Old English, for example, has both wōd (fury) and wōþ (eloquence).

certainly is from the same root

No, they come from different Germanic roots.

(the Celtic[!] cognate of which you have cut from the text)

No, it's not cut. You named an Irish cognate, and it is still listed, defined and placed among a whole list of other cognates.

In fact the list clearly defines the word: it means not "ire" but poet.

and in Proto-Germanic, its meaning will have been something compatible with both "ire" and "poetry" (as explained in the section you have cut).

You are saying now that Odin is the god of angry poetry. That doesn't make sense to me.

Your alleged "fundamental flaw" does not exist, because the semantic split of Old Norse odhr most likely didn't exist in Proto Germanic.

No, spelling the two different words the same in Old Norse is a bit unusual.

If you read the section, you will see that cognates from five different Indo-European languages were listed, none of which has a meaning of "ire."

If you want to discuss Old Norse connotations and folk etymologies of the name, you may have a point,

Confusing two separate words as one would be a folk etymology.

but not if you want to discuss the actual etymology. Your Old Norse semantic split does not, to the best of my knowledge, exist in West Germanic, and has no bearing on Woden or Wotan.

You haven't provided any evidence of such knowledge. The only etymological information you provided, the Irish cognate, demonstrated the opposite of what you contended.

I hope that helps.

Best wishes!

Wighson 03:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Dab's Comments

These are "Dab's" comments, not mine. Since I did not write them, I have taken my name out of the heading. Wighson 18:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

that's fine. I was addressing your edits, so "you" in my comments below stands for "Wighson", but the comments are, patently, mine. dab (ᛏ) 20:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

---

well, "it helps" some. I appreciate your respect, but you seem to be either misunderstanding or dodging my main points. Also, do I sense a little bit of condescension? "not Celtic, but Irish", what on Earth are you talking about? Again, I do think your additions are mostly fine, let's talk about your removals first (we can still talk about the *-ana- suffix later, that's a comparatively minor point).

For the record, this is your edit (a multi-edit diff, including an anon adding a category, and me adding some publication dates, but all substantial changes in the diff are yours).

removals

An obsolete alternate etymology, which has been adhered to by many early writers including Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa in his Libri tres de occulta philosophia, is to give it the same root as the word god itself, from its Proto-Germanic form *ɣuđ-.

You removed this without replacement, and without explanation. We can agree that the etymology is obsolete. It may still be notable. Why did you want it gone? Is the statement incorrect? (it's not mine, and I didn't check Agrippa. Did you?). Don't forget that this article is also about Lombardic Godan.

Proto-Germanic *Wōðinaz may go back to a pre-Proto-Germanic *Vatinos. It has been noted, however, that the Anglo-Saxon Woden is not in exact correspondence with German Wotan, suggesting that the latter has been transformed by popular etymology to conform with the meaning "the raging one", particularly after Christianisation, when Wotan was seen as a demon, while the Nordic and the Anglo-Saxon forms preserved the original form of the name. One possibility is that the name was borrowed from the Celts, during the Pre-Roman Iron Age, when both groups lived in northern Germany, and that it is associated with the Celtic priestly caste of the Vates. The Celtic word is ultimately derived from the same root (possibly Proto-Indo-European, but only attested in Celtic and Germanic) as the Germanic words for "possessed" cited above, *vāt-, with a more general meaning of "spiritually excited", also preserved in the Irish word for "poet", fáith. If the word is indeed a loan from the Celtic, it may be an important hint to the dating of the Proto-Germanic Grimm's law.

You replaced this entire paragraph with a note of the Celtic cognates. I must say your approach is quite confused here. You off-handedly reject a connection of "wrath" and "poetry" via a Proto-Germanic root for "spiritual excitement". My reference is Rübekeil (2003) (cited on Vates). Note that Adam von Bremen in Wotan id est furor uses the West Germanic form. Old Norse doesn't enter into this discussion. Rübekeil (2003) reconstructs pre-Proto-Germanic *Vatinos (which you have removed). Your statement "Adam von Bremen was wrong" is not universally accepted, at least not regarding root etymology. dab (ᛏ) 14:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply

Re: removals

What we are discussing is your own [unreferenced edits], which have led you repeatedly to remove all others' edits that displeased you. Since I was able to introduce for the first time citations (and with endnotes), the matter in Etymology should have been solved. However, you continued to remove the corrections, going so far as to alter the citations. This alteration in particular violates Wikipedia policy.

An obsolete alternate etymology, which has been adhered to by many early writers including Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa in his Libri tres de occulta philosophia, is to give it the same root as the word god itself, from its Proto-Germanic form *ɣuđ-.

You removed this without replacement, and without explanation. We can agree that the etymology is obsolete. It may still be notable. Why did you want it gone? Is the statement incorrect? (it's not mine, and I didn't check Agrippa. Did you?). Don't forget that this article is also about Lombardic Godan.

You admitted that it is obsolete. You gave the explanation here and in the History. When you say that it is obsolete, you are admitting it is wrong. Can you imagine what Wikipedia would like if we put in the millions of factual errors that one could invent? You have reinserted what you know is wrong. To reinsert something you know is wrong is in violation of Wikipedia policy.

Proto-Germanic *Wōðinaz may go back to a pre-Proto-Germanic *Vatinos. It has been noted, however, that the Anglo-Saxon Woden is not in exact correspondence with German Wotan, suggesting that the latter has been transformed by popular etymology to conform with the meaning "the raging one", particularly after Christianisation, when Wotan was seen as a demon, while the Nordic and the Anglo-Saxon forms preserved the original form of the name. One possibility is that the name was borrowed from the Celts, during the Pre-Roman Iron Age, when both groups lived in northern Germany, and that it is associated with the Celtic priestly caste of the Vates. The Celtic word is ultimately derived from the same root (possibly Proto-Indo-European, but only attested in Celtic and Germanic) as the Germanic words for "possessed" cited above, *vāt-, with a more general meaning of "spiritually excited", also preserved in the Irish word for "poet", fáith. If the word is indeed a loan from the Celtic, it may be an important hint to the dating of the Proto-Germanic Grimm's law.

You replaced this entire paragraph with a note of the Celtic cognates. I must say your approach is quite confused here. You off-handedly reject a connection of "wrath" and "poetry" via a Proto-Germanic root for "spiritual excitement".

The paragraph had major factual errors and had no citations. The information is not part of the scholarly consensus. I corrected the errors, expanded the section, and for the first time in the history of this page, I added citations. Adding citations is not "off-handed." They prove the scholarly consensus of the topic at hand top avoid original research. This is Wikipedia policy.

My reference is Rübekeil (2003) (cited on Vates). Rübekeil (2003) reconstructs pre-Proto-Germanic *Vatinos (which you have removed).

Really? That isn't what you said before! In the article you said Rübekeil discovered a Celtic loanword? And on April 29, you said "Rübekeil (2003) suggested that the name of the Germanic god Woden may be connected with the Vates."[4] But the Celtic word which you thought was on loan and meant "ire," (=anger), meant "poet", a separate word. So now each separate homograph is from the same "pre-Proto-Germanic" reconstruction. This is new! Further, your reference is to the title of an article in German on Wodan and exhumation of graveyards. Since the title does not match reconstructing a "pre-Proto-Germanic *Vatinos", you need to provide the article itself. Without that, this is not a credible source and in violation of Wikipedia policy.

Note that Adam von Bremen in Wotan id est furor uses the West Germanic form. Old Norse doesn't enter into this discussion.

That is disengenuous. This is an article about an Old Norse word, Óðinn. This contradicts your own statement above that we are discussing "proto-Germanic" roots.

Your statement "Adam von Bremen was wrong" is not universally accepted, at least not regarding root etymology.

Both that Adam of Bremen was wrong about Wotan's ire, and that the words are homonyms is the scholarly consensus. I have cited that consensus. You have nothing to cite. Folk etymologies such as what you are asserting are unfounded, but have an amazing shelf-life: they keep coming back to life. I have already cited conclusively the separation of *wōd- and *wōþ-. You have mentioned but one source (Pokorny) which you are well aware is out of date (1959), 46 years older than DeVries 4th edition. This is dishonest. This violates Wikipedia policy.

--Wighson 04:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: claims

• you claim that odhr "obsessed" and odhr "poetry" are not Proto-Germanic root cognates, and that "Adam von Bremen was wrong". I will check a Proto-Germanic reference. They certainly are considered Indo-European root cognates (Pokorny, IEW, *vāt- (1)), something you don't seem to be able to wrap your mind around.

  Lat. va:te:s, -is (wohl kelt. Lw.?) `Weissager, Seher', gall. ouateis N. Pl. ds., air. fa:ith `Seher, Prophet', mir. fa:th (*va:tu-) `Prophezeiung, Ursache' = cymr. gwawd `Gedicht'; got. wo:ds `besessen', aisl. o:ðr, ags. wo:d ds. (*wo:da-), ahd. wuot `insanitus'; aisl. œ:sa `rasend, verrückt machen', ags. we:dan, ahd. wuoten, alts. wo:dian `wüten, rasend, verrückt sein'; ahd. *wuot (Gen. wuoti), mhd. wuot `heftige Gemütsstimmung, Wut'; dazu aisl. O:ðinn, as. ags. Wo:den, ahd. Wuotan; auf germ. *wo:þa- weist aisl. o:ðr m. `Poesie', ags. wo:þ `Gesang, Laut, Stimme, Dichtung';

Pulling a fast one? ;-) First you alter citations to make them look forty years older than they are. Then you complain that they are old. Now here you add another reference to Wikipedia's own article about (Pokorny) that admits it is out of date by 46 years. Thus, you knew the reference was invalid. Putting it in the main article is in violation of Wikipedia policy.

• In a context of the Vates I don't see any problem of connecting "madness, obsession"

Yesterday you said "ire." Why is it obsession today? I think you have coined your very own definition of Old Norse óðr.

and "poetry". You have a point in as much as Proto-Germanic seems to have variants woð- vs. woþ-,

No, I pointed out the variants wōd and wōþ. I take it you have no linguistic background. It is easy for someone without the necessary background to confuse them. But the two letters 'd' and 'þ' are what we are talking about when we say that the Old Norse and Old English have two homographs from two different roots.

you are talking about Anglo-Saxon. I am talking about Proto-Germanic (I should have spelled đ, not ð. Proto-Germanic and Anglo-Saxon are not the same, you know. There are 1000 years in between. dab (ᛏ) 07:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

but Pokorny obviously considers this simple Grammatischer Wechsel. You seem to say that I am the first person on Earth that identifies these roots. Seeing that Pokorny does exactly that without batting an eyelid, I would ask you who, then, separates these roots.

As you know, the book was published in 1959. DeVries, 4th edition (2000), supercedes it for relevant etymologies of Germanic languages.

• You claim that Proto-Germanic -ana- is a suffix universally accepted as meaning "lord" (as opposed to, say, "an adjective formans frequently occurring in words denoting possession or lordship"). I have no problem with Vatinos being "the one [god] of the vat", and consequently the "lord of the vat", but the "lord" bit is already an interpretation, and doesn't imply the claim that the suffix itself inherently means "lord". Hang on, I will look for a proper reference on this myself. dab (ᛏ) 14:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

From the comment on the word -ana, I take it you have not done any translating yourself. "Lord" is not an interpretation. It is one of three possible translations that I won't need to repeat here again.

I try not to allow anything "to wrap around my mind." ;-)

• You claim that no myth or legend portrays Odin as violent. If you look beyond the etymology section, the very next statement is "For the Norse people, Odin's name was synonymous with battle and warfare, [...] Odin was a shape-changer, [...] Odin is associated with the concept of the Wild Hunt, a noisy, bellowing movement across the sky, leading a host of the slain, directly comparable to Vedic Rudra." I don't know what could fit any better with a description of "violent, furious" than the Wild Hunt. And (as opposed to the "finding of the Runes" etc.), the Wild Hunt is preserved in West Germanic legend as well, and is probably Proto-Germannic.

As I should have guessed, that article was wrong. I have fixed it, with citation. In folklore throughout the Western world, the Wild Hunt's leader is usually identified as the Devil. It should surprise no one then that some Medieval Christians would identify the leader with Odin of paganism in the past. You should stay abreast of sources, if you want to continue editing in these areas. I am saddened to find anyone who hasn't read the basics. There are a lot of good sources out there, and Amazon makes them all easy to get, don't you think?

If you look at the Norse picture stones, Odin appears as an ithyphallic warrior.

You don't mean Odin.

I suppose this is Catherine the Great, then? dab (ᛏ) 07:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

By all means, I do accept that Viking Age Odin had strong poetic/cultural aspects. But to claim that there is no evidence for obsession, sorcery (shape-shifting), violence or madness is very much mistaken. It is simply a fact that skaldic skills, and prophetic madness,

Composing skaldic poetry requires a high degree of mental concentration. Insanity would not help. Isn't he the god of wisdom? Isn't wisdom the opposite of madness? You have not provided any evidence for Odin's madness.

and battle-fury were not seen as mutually exclusive, but rather as two sides of the same coin. Just look at Egill Skallagrímsson.

This is a good article but it doesn't help your point. To begin with, this saga is not a myth about Odin being the god of anger, or "ire," as you said yesterday. If you read Egil's Saga, you will find that although he makes a fascinating character for a book, he is no hero. He is a murderous pirate who is extremely ugly and deformed with a disease. His god is indeed Odin, and Odin has two palaces, one for himself and one for half of the dead warriors. As a warrior Egil would expect to go to Valhǫll, and rightly so since, as Gangleri says when he comes into High's hall: Þá litaðisk hann umb ok þótti margir hlutir ótrúglir þeir er hann sá. Valhǫll he says is full of unsavory characters, and he urges one to watch out for these unfriends who can be anywhere.

I hope those who have the rare skills needed in Old Norse will no longer be treated like unfriends. I hope they are no longer edited and reverted out.

I can only hope you are not referring to yourself. We do, luckily, have some editors with such skills, and I hope they will chime in soon. Jesus Christ, what have you done to this talkpage? Most of what you say is so far beside the point that you leave me speechless. So you own a couple of dictionaries; does that give you a "linguistic background", let alone allow you to judge mine? Pokorny (1959) is outdated, because you have a fourth edition of de Vries, printed in 2000? (de Vries revised his dictionary in 1963. He died in 1964. I assume your 2000 edition is just a reprint of 1963?) Burn all books, then, ey? I mean what do we need 40 year old books for when we can buy stuff printed in 2000, yes? dab (ᛏ) 07:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Dab reverts (again)

Reason: Dictionaries never change from edition to edition

odhr

I have de Vries in front of me now. It's a 1977 reprint of the 1963 second edition. Wighson will claim that his 2000 reprint of the same is 23 years better than mine, I suppose, but here you are:

No. Neither is a "reprint." You are confusing reprint with "edition," an inadequate explanation for altering publication dates.

Can you imagine the laughter if anyone suggested that Webster's tenth edition was the same as the first, from 180 years ago?

Dictionaries really change from edition to edition.

Wighson 18:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

look, just tell us what is in your precious 2000 "edition", then, and we'll see if a single letter was changed. dab (ᛏ) 22:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"""Several new entries have been added, and old ones have been expanded. You are insisting that there was no change, but you do not even have the editions in question. Indeed a quick look at Amazon.com confirms that even the 1977 edition was revised: [5]""" Wighson 21:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The sort of stuff you have to put up with on Wikipedia sometimes simply beggars belief. "de Vries, Jan: Altnordisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Zweite verbesserte Auflage. Leiden: Brill, 2000;" ISBN 9004054367 [6] [7] [8].

You did not read the description at Amazon in your own link which clearly marks this 1997 edition as revised. It does not say "reprint" anywhere! It says: Rev edition (August, 1997).

"Rev" means revised," "revised" means changed.

Yes, editions of the dictionary really are revised from year to year.

First you were unaware of the standard references in the field. Then you when you find about them, you say they are all wrong. When you realized they are not wrong, you say they are old. When you realized they were not old, you altered the dates.

And you do all this without any knowledge of the field and without even looking at the books you are writing about. Wighson 21:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

unlike in Webster's case, it's a reprint. I hope this puts the matter to rest (and in perspective) for any sane editors watching this. I could have worked on the article in the hour or so I wasted on this puerile BS. dab (ᛏ) 14:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a good start toward routing this article back toward actual scholarship. Well done, Dieter.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 02:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No. It is not scholarship to advance a claim without the actual editions in hand. Since you do not actually have the editions in question, it is an assumption to call this a "reprint". The work in question does not say "reprint" anywhere, ie: no "Nachdruck" anywhere. In other words, reprints are marked "reprints." For example, the current edition expands the list of Indo-European cognates beyond prior editions and none of the Indo-European cognates have a meaning of "angry, irate," or "furious". The current edition is particularly valuable because entries for mythological names are expanded and a few dozen new ones are added. As your own link to Amazon confirms, this edition is revised.

This is a dictionary. Dictionaries are revised from edition to edition. The changes to this particular edition are significant and greatly help me in my job -- in Old Norse. Please let those of us who know Old Norse discuss Old Norse.

This work which you are dismissing is the standard reference in the field.

You did not even know it existed until I told you about it. Then you attacked it without looking at it. You are reading this from someone who actually does know Old Norse. You were advancing pet theories without substantiation and you do not even know the language in question -- Old Norse. Wighson 21:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

óðr

1. m. "erregtheit; dichtkunst, dichtung" (wohl eigentlich "mantische poesie") < germ, *wōþa; ae. wōd "eifer; stimme, gesang"
2. m. "name eines gottes" < germ. *wōþu, run. norw. woðuriðe
3. adj. "wütend, rasend" ae. wōd "wütend, rasend" -- lat. vates, air. faith

Each of these three entries ("lemmata") represents a separate root. Thus it would not matter if the revised editions were all the same. DeVries explains in the Vorwort that each entry is a different root. Wighson 21:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I am in full accord with de Vries, and so is Pokorny. "mantische poesie" is excellent. "eifer; stimme, gesang" is in accord too. Nowhere does de Vries claim that these are different roots, that appears to be entirely Wighson's idea. Turning to Proto-Germanic, I have here

Vladimir Orel, A Handbook of Germanic Etymology, Leiden (2003)

(hey, that's even 3 years better than your de Vries reprint, Wighson!) Orel has

• wōđanaz sb. m., derived from wōđaz
• wōđaz ~ wōđō sb.m./f., ON óðr "mind, wit, soul, sense", OE ellen-wód "zeal", MDu woet "madness", OHG wuot "thrill, violent agitation".

Substantivized wōđaz.

No "homonymy" in sight anywhere. We are looking at a single root, forming a single adjective, also used substantivized, with a semantic field that Wighson, but none of our authorities, seem to consider difficult to accept. dab (ᛏ) 08:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This book is an effort to continue the reconstruction of the common Germanic lexicon. This resource follows one of the standard works of etymology in the field: DeVries. Further, it shows that the reconstructed proto-Germanic word related to Odinn led to Old Norse ON óðr "mind, wit, soul, sense" and not the other word meaning "Ire, anger, or fury." This contradicts Adam of Bremen, but if you are using this, then we now agree on something. I am glad you found it!

[This comment originally followed misstatements on DeVries]Grundverkehrt. You should see it. You just typed it in. There are three entries for three "Indo-European roots." It's all explained in the Vorwort. No real Indo-Europeanist would make that mistake. If you don't know German, I can translate it for you if you like. Free of charge, just to be nice. Wighson 20:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

you honestly have no idea about the concept of "root", do you? Nor do you see a difference between Old Norse and Proto-Indo-European? How else can you count lemmata in a dictionary of Old Norse as "Indo-European roots"? I give up. It is impossible to argue with somebody so unburdened by knowledge and at the same time as adamantly convinced of their own brilliance. Regarding your translation services, a glance at my userpage will show you that I live in Zurich. And I might add that I have degrees from both ETH Zurich and Zurich University,

so I presume that some German fluency has stuck. But thanks, I guess. As a 'free' hint from my part, "Forschungsgeschichtliche Leiche" is a metaphor, not an actual bog body claimed as Odin. dab (ᛏ) 18:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

My compliments to you. But this does not show any background in the issues at hand.

The book explains in the Vorwort that each entry (as you say, "lemma") is a separate word."'

Don't dismiss the standard work in the field. Wighson 21:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

alright, I fleshed out the etymology section, referencing each and every statement (yes, including the "article on graveyards"). If you still want to claim a Proto-Germanic "homonymy of unrelated roots", you'd need to give some unambiguous reference. I somehow hope you realize that I am precisely saying that the original meaning of the name was not simple "fury" ("wrath", "ire", whatever), even though the root is etymologically identical. This is the result of a semantic shift,

What shift? Don't introduce yet another theory without substantiation. Wighson 21:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

and your pointing out the semantic split of odhr in medieval Norse (not in Proto-Germanic) is a valuable illustration of this point. dab (ᛏ) 12:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the words are in both West Germanic (wod and woth) and North Germanic, the words existed separately in proto-Germanic. Wighson 21:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

-na- (dab again)

I found no source glossing the -(a)na- suffix as expressing "lordship" in particular. Orel (2003) treats it simply as a suffix to derive nominal stems. drótinn, dryten he derives from *đruxtīnaz. These are just reflexes of the PIE -(i/o)no- stems, and I haven't seen a claim of an inherent meaning. It is flawed to argue that if *đruxtīz means "people/troops" and *đruxtīnaz means "lord of the people/troops", na must mean lord. With the same justification, you can argue that if English king is from the same root as English kin, logically English g must mean "lord". But I suppose I don't have to point this out to somebody with a "linguistic background". dab (ᛏ) 08:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

lol, hang on, I did find your "lord" reference. *na as a "Herrschersuffix" is a suggestion by Wolfgang Meid in BNF 8 (1957). I daresay the suggestion didn't find much favour, but now that we have the reference, we can of course mention it. I hope you realize that I did your work for you there. dab (ᛏ) 09:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

Is it me or is the etylmology section too far up in the article. Although pertinent it is a largely academic part with little for the average reader. How about putting it further down the article? GraemeLeggett 11:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

whoa, can we wait with the layout until the worst of the content-related row has died down? Imho it is customary to treat the etymology first. I don't know about the "average reader", but I find it difficult to make informed statements about a term before discussing its origin. If you read the section you will note that it is deeply intertwined with mythological and legendary aspects of Odin. I am also always happy to counter the "anti-academic bias" of Wikipedia :) dab (ᛏ) 12:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to shoot down GraemeLeggett, too. Simple courtesy means one should listen to others. I have to agree with him here. A single sentence could summarize it in "General Characteristics." Wighson 19:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion. (P.MacUidhir tries to help)

Courtesy in discourse is a wonderful thing. I am a hypocrite by making this suggestion since I do not have a reputation for being polite, but so be it. The conversation found here that is dealing with etymology and theonyms is edifying, true, but the pissing contest concerned with 'who has the source text with the most gold gilt' is shifting from droll to boring. Try agreeing on which sources to use and then collaborate in editing the actual article. That will do more than seeing who can stack their personal library of scholarly sources to the infinite heights and dragging on with a debate on comparative value of source texts. Use the sources for the tasks that best suit them. There are really not *that* many in the pool of available choices for any given task within northern European studies. Slainté,

--P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wighson reaffirms need for politeness

Sarcasm: "A sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt." --Oxford English Dictionary

"A sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to give pain." --Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1998)

Pádraic, I am in no pissing contest about sources, and when I said "my source is 3 years better than yours", I did hope my sarcasm was unmistakeable.

Now you are arguing with Pádraic MacUidhir, too. Wighson 20:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I did accept all of the sources brought forward by Whigson. Obviousl, de Vries is a respectable source. But Whigsons insistence that his 2000 reprint of the 1963 2nd edition rendered Pokorny (1959) "obsolete" because it is 40 years "later" was too grotesque for me to keep a straight face.

I repeat: the editions are not reprints. Dictionaries really do change from edition to edition. These changed a lot. The fourth edition is not a reprint of 1963. No real Indo-Europeanist would make that big mistake. Wighson 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

De Vries' dictionary is as good today as it was in 1963, and I did have to look it up that it does not, in fact, support Whigson's claims, and far from rendering Pokorny obsolete, it is in exact accord. Things went downhill from there on the talkpage, and I admit my courtesy slipped after I found the non-too gentlemanly notice now at the top of this page, but in article space, Whigson's intervention has in fact led to an improvement, and I hope the etymology section is now pretty watertight. I am not a scholar of medieval Norse, I am an Indo-Europeanist.

A real Indo-Europeanist would not depend on a source from 1959. He could name thousands of pages of current research that he would use instead. Wighson 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I am thus grateful for Whigson's pointer to the semantic split in Old Norse odhr. The conclusions he draws from said semantic split, otoh, are premature, mainly because the etymology of Odin is a question of (pre-)Proto-Germanic, not of Old Norse. dab (ᛏ) 08:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll take silence for unanimity on the present version, so I'll take off the warning. We can always put it back if specific points are challenged. dab (ᛏ) 20:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Not so fast! Some of us have jobs and families! Vandalism again? (sigh) Wighson 19:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

To User:Pádraic_MacUidhir: Thank you!! Courtesy is a virtue. This is what caught my attention to this, ie, dab's massive reverts of all others' works over the past year. When I realized that others' were right and his version was not, he reverted me, too. This violates Wikipedia policy.

Like you, I only became involved to make a compromise. Dab rejected and reverted it.

It would be a great idea to pick sources, but user:dbachmann is still altering real citations and replacing them with fake ones. Pretending that very different editions are just reprints of old editions is silly and makes it impossible for agreement. He has been inserting his own personal thoughts without support and removing others' contributions for the past year. This violates Wikipedia policy.

Making things up as one goes along is easy to spot. And it violates Wikipedia policy. Wighson 19:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you just blow a fuse or something? How is reverting your edits "violating WP policy" or even "vandalism"? I argued point by point why your edits were mistaken. At this point you are just sulking. And I daresay the "courtesy" remark was directed at you, too. Since you seem to have a fixation with me by now, I'll leave things to others for the time being, but my points made above stand: you may be a "trained historian", but in matters etymological, you are evidently out of your element. "A real Indo-Europeanist would not use Pokorny" mmm-hm, Whigson, that's brilliant, I'll be sure to suggest that to my peers. I haven't seen your 2000 reprint, but my 1977 reprint was certainly unchanged since 1963. So who edited your updated "de Vries 2000", then, and more importantly, what is different in your shiny 2000 edition compared to the original 1963 entry I quoted above? Pokorny (1959) is the baseline communis opinio. The latest word on the matter I am aware of is Ruebekeil (2003), but of course you think this is a "fake reference", or an "article about graveyards". Good one, Whigson, you really had me chuckling there. dab (ᛏ) 21:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

ÁBM

I have before me this book:

• Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon (1989). Íslensk orðsifjabók. Reykjavík: Orðabók Háskólans.

It is an etymological dictionary of Icelandic. It's a reasonably recent and reasonably respected work. Having only one author it can't help but be a little eccentric and it's somewhat more conservative than one would expect from a book with this publication date. The author, for example, is skeptical about the laryngeal theory - something not seen a lot these days. I'll summarize a few entries from it.

---

Óðinn: Related to Swedish Oþin, Oþan, Oþun, Old Danish Othin- in compounds, Old Saxon Wôden, Old High German Wuotan, Old English Wôden; < Germanic *wôðana-, related to óður (noun). ... From IE *wât- or *wôt- "being agitated", cf. Latin vâtês.

óður (noun): poetry, poem; agitation; mind; related to Nynorsk od, ode, Old English wôð, Mid High German wôt and Old High German wuot, Latin vâtês, Old Irish fáith and Old Indian api-vâtáyati. Originally meaning something like "intense state of mind" and from there the meanings "inspiration" and "poetry" developed. See óður (2) and Óður (3) ...

óður (adjective): 'agitated, mad; fast, eager'; related to Faroese 'óður', Nynorsk 'od', Old English wôd, Old High German ver-wuot, Gothic 'woþs'; from IE *wât- or perhaps rather *wôt-, cf. Old Indian api-vâtáyati, api-vátati. Perhaps the root originally meant "inspiration" and could then be related to IE *(a)wê- in Icelandic "vindur" and German "wehen"

Óður (name): Hardly related to Gothic woþeis, rather related to óður (noun) and óður (verb) and really another form of the god name Óðinn and with the same meaning. The word occurs as a prefix of human names, as in the Proto Norse inscription Woduride (dative) and it seems to have originally been an u-stem as various god-names like Njörður and Ullur.

---

Sorry for the modern Icelandicisms. Hope this is intelligeble. Basically he thinks this is all from the same root and doesn't really try to set a time-frame for the semantic developments. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"intense state of mind" is good, that's the unifying core meaning. The unity of the concept was lost with Christianity, I suppose, when such agitation had to be either sinful/demonic (wrath, obsession) or artistic/divine (poetry, inspiration). dab (ᛏ) 08:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. But the split might be earlier, I suppose, especially since it seems to be present both in West-Germanic and North-Germanic. The entries in Lexicon Poeticum can be read here: [9] All the occurrences of the words in the oldest poetry are noted. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Haukurth. Wighson 22:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Etymology - some general remarks

The article shouldn't promote a pet theory or treat conjecture and speculation as fact. All that can really be said is that the óð- in "Óðinn" seems to be related to either or both of the 'óðr' words. Those, in turn, are thought to derive ultimately from the same Indo-European root. The semantic developments are difficult to trace exactly and a general encyclopedia article on Óðinn isn't really the right place to go into details on that. The remark from Adam of Bremen should be mentioned and we should mention that it's not the whole story but explicitly trying to refute it isn't the thing to do here.

As for the suffix -inn, well, it's just a suffix :) It probably didn't have any transparent meaning even in heathen times. The theory that it derives from a word denoting lordship is just barely significant enough to mention in the article and its status should not be exaggerated. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

can we agree that "both" odhr words have the exact same etymology, and sounded exactly the same both in Old Norse and in Proto-Germanic? Whence, then, do we even take the justification to ask "which one" the name is derived from? Regarding a Proto-Germanic split, that would be interesting, but we'd first have to find a source discussing this. All our sources so far are perfectly happy to derive the word from the root, not specifically from either the adjective or the substantive. WP:CITE is as simple as that; if there is a published reference discussing this alleged dichotomy, I'll be all for including it. Just Whigson coming up with it from looking at his de Vries 2000 is not enough. Regarding the level of detail you have a point. I supposed I heaped on more detail that is really warranted in an attempt to show exactly where W's argument of "lord of inspiration, Adam was wrong" was overly simplistic. dab (ᛏ) 22:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's an adjective and there's a noun and those are two clearly differentiated words with different inflections. They are certainly two words for me. In Modern Icelandic one means "poetry" and the other means "mad" and there's no transparent connection between them. But as you go back in time the words seem to converge. The question is on the timing of the semantic drift and then you have to take the West-Germanic (and Gothic) evidence into account. The name of the god may very well be so old that it predates this semantic divergence. In fact I would bet it is, but that sort of thing is difficult to proof.

Whatever the original meaning there would have been no obvious way for a 10th century Norseman to determine whether the name of the god was related to the adjective or the noun - or whether it was related to either. But the semantic split probably wasn't far along then anyhow. And here's a gratuitous inflectional table of óðr óðr, "mad poetry" (not an idiomatic expression).

nom. óðr óðr

acc. óðan óð

dat. óðum óði

gen. óðs óðar

Anyone researching this in earnest would, among other things:

1. Look at the usage of both words in the earliest poetry (starting with that Lexicon Poeticum entry)
2. Look at the usage of words derived from these, in particular "œði"
3. Carefully compare with the earliest usage of related words in other Germanic languages

Then one could try to piece together a time frame for the semantic developments. But obviously we shouldn't try to do this ourselves. To the extent that this kind of information is needed at all in this article we'll rely on the standard works in the field. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Some even more general remarks

Let's try to cool down a bit in here. DAB is a nice guy and he's done good work for this article. Refactoring the talk page to make it look like a series of boxing matches between DAB and others is not accurate and not helpful.

I think that D's etymology section is a pretty solid baseline and if W wants to alter it to insert new views or give more prominence to a particular view that's okay but please do it in small well-sourced steps so we can check each of them along the way. A good start would be to write up the relevant entries from your version of Altnordische etymologisches Wörterbuch on this talk page. I also notice that there's an article by the same author named "Über das Verhältnis von Óðr und Óðinn" which we may want to check if de Vries is someone we can agree on as a good source.

Now, personally I think etymological reasoning is often overdone a bit in mythology studies. I can understand that scholars indulge in it for entities which we know very little of except the name. If we just know the name it makes sense to study the name (see Lóðurr for example). But we have a large amount of ancient sources of Odin so the etymology of his name should only form a small part - and not necessarily a starting point - on research into his nature. We shouldn't give etymological conjecture priority over well-preserved myths and legends.

I also feel that too many conclusions are often drawn from the etymology of Týr. The theory that he was originally the highest god and then dethroned by Odin is based entirely on etymology with just about no corraborating evidence.

But what I think is, of course, only marginally relevant. We should base our articles on up-to-date respected scholarship. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and Origins of Odin or Wodanaz should probably become a separate article. Etymological speculation has of course no bearing on Norse mythology, which is well documented, but it is really important to guide our ideas about Proto-Germanic matters. So inasmuch as this article is about Nordic Odin, etymological speculation is rather futile, yes. dab (ᛏ) 15:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

A few comments.

New views, particular views... it does not matter. As long as they can be cited using sources acceptable to scholars in each respective field, then we are doing our job correctly.

Lóðurr, Loðr, Loke, or Loki - as long as everyone acknowledges that he is a wonderful gent, I am happy. ;)

Týr as the 'old highest god'? Eh? I would imagine that the evidence for Þórr would be more compelling. R. Kroesen makes some decent arguments for that possibility, though there are better treatments of the topic.

Quote: "We shouldn't give etymological conjecture priority over well-preserved myths and legends." - Haukur Þorgeirsson

Agreed. Very much so. The field of Indo-European linguistics is, admittedly, nearly as young as the study of folklore by way of the scientific method, but I am still inclined to trust Ari Þorgilsson or Snorri Sturlason more than, say, Georges Dumézil, and especially more so compared to the 'theories' of Maria Gimbutas, as a general rule.

Quote: "...and Origins of Odin or Wodanaz should probably become a separate article." - dab (ᛏ)

Agreed, with reservations. Origins of Odin as a title is rather ambiguous. Wodanaz ... not really very intuitive as far as choice of words is concerned, but it is less ambiguous and far less arbitrary than, say, Odin. Neither really thrills me as a title for a spawned article, but I do not have a better suggestion, so feel free to ignore me. :)

Quote: "Etymological speculation has of course no bearing on Norse mythology, which is well documented..."" - dab (ᛏ)

I disagree, at least in principle. The scholarly arguments concerned with the 'brothers of Odin', the various names attributed to the entity known as Loki, and a few other well-known debates tend to draw heavily on scientific linguistics. Just a few examples given here, of course. There is also the 'nine mothers of Heimdallr' debate, the source of the myths that focus on Heimdallr/Ríg... and on and on. My POV is that linguistic data, including etymological data, should be used as a tool, just as archaeological data is used to support or dismiss theories in history texts. No more, no less. We have to be careful to know when to use tools as well as know when to use them appropriately.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 03:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Godan

I finally got round to looking for the source of Lombardic Godan. It is the 7th c. Origo Gentis Langobardorum [10]. The identification with Wodan is due to Paulus Diaconus [11] [12],

Certum tamen est, Langobardos ab intactae ferro barbae longitudine, cum primitus Winili dicti fuerint, ita postmodum appellatos. Nam iuxta illorum linguam lang longam, bard barbam significat. Wotan sane, quem adiecta littera Godan dixerunt, ipse est qui apud Romanos Mercurius dicitur et ab universis Germaniae gentibus ut deus adoratur; qui non circa haec tempora, sed longe anterius, nec in Germania, sed in Grecia fuisse perhibetur.

So, Paul basically says Godan is G+wodan, but there is no reason to assume the names are cognate at all, Godan may be an independent theonym, or it may indeed be a contamination of "God" and "Wodan". I'll try to find some literature on this. dab (ᛏ) 14:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment from the ignorant masses

I know nothing about etymology, but wiki is not a message board and the merits the various interpretations is not really an issue. If there's two conflicting interpretations with substantial following they should both be in the article. Even some obsolete forms might be notable enough to mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fornadan (talk • contribs)