Talk:Óðr

message: Viktor Rydberg's hypotheses should not be presented as factual.
They may be mentioned.
But they are generally deprecated rather than accepted.
jallan 06:24, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rydberg

message: I took the liberty of adding an article section Meaning, detailing the accurate meaning of the noun Óðr. It is not Etymology, as the latter deals with the origin of the word, not the meaning of it. Hence a new section. Please note, that the meaning of the noun Óðr is not the meaning of the god Óðr - the section does not attempt to clarify his role in the Eddas and folklore, it only provides the meaning of his name. 
Many Old Norse words and concepts are still used in contemporary Scandinavian languages, this is one. Old English or Old German is not always similar, and sometimes very far from Old Norse. For this reason, if one seeks an understanding of Old Norse concepts it will often be more beneficial to consult sources in a Scandinavian language than those in eg. a German language. clsc 16:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of the noun Óðr 

message: While the comparison with Odin is straightforward already on etymological grounds, the comparison with Ottar seems to be an idiosyncratic idea of Rydberg's, and I have doubts on the notability of the hypothesis. Anyone beside Rydberg that made the comparison? dab (𒁳) 13:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's notable enough that Rydberg mentions it for us to mention that he mentioned it. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it noteworthy what Rydberg wrote on this topic, since it was mainly a product of his literary imagination and has never enjoyed any acceptance among scholars of Norse mythology?  Shouldn't this material be on the Rydberg page, instead of here? Rsradford (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rydberg isn't a good source on Norse mythology. If it's important to Rydberg's theories, it can be mentioned in Rydberg's article, but just Rydberg alone doesn't make for a notable "theory" to be presented here. dab (𒁳) 16:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, Rydberg's theories are not generally accepted. However, they are of interest because a lot of things spawn from his theories and his works are referred to in contemporary times. I think this is good information to have regarding any figure he's developed an amount of theories towards that may have had some influence over the years - people can see where the notions and theories they've encountered may have come from. A note saying something like "Rydberg's theories are not generally accepted" with some sort of reference would finely clean up the issue. I think it's important that someone gets a hold of these specific works by Rydberg and sees where Rydberg's mentions begin and where someone may have "ran with it" on some of these articles though, it doesn't seem to be particularly clear. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I don't know of a single instance in which Rydberg's mythological theories were picked up and developed by any scholar in the post-Romantic Nationalist era.  It's hard to find any favorable references by modern scholars to Rydberg's supposed "mythology of the ancient Aryan race." This was a favorite theme for dozens of Scandinavian, German, and even American writers pre-WWII, but Rydberg's is the only version that has developed something of a crank following on the Internet.  Still, I don't see how he qualifies as a reliable resource for Norse mythology, as opposed to a resource for 19th-century Romantic Nationalism. Rsradford (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, Rydberg is obviously not a reliable source on Norse mythology. Still, that doesn't mean he shouldn't go unmentioned when he has theories - it's notable to the subject at hand. I have, however, removed the section as it is dubiously sourced. I am concerned what there was actually presented by Rydberg and what may have be WP:OR. Still, if someone can properly source some of Rydberg's theories here, I don't object to them being here, properly worded as what they are - Rydberg's theories. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's useful to include Rydberg's theories in articles like this, as long as they are clearly marked as such. It inoculates the articles from having these theories added without any disclaimers. For whatever reason many of Rydberg's theories are still quite popular, among amateurs if not among scholars. Haukur (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

text: That's something of an overstatement. For example Rydberg was the first scholar to point out the similarities between Agni and Heimdallr. Haukur (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rydberg is included in the bibliography to Simek's Lexicon (and Simek is about as "mainstream" as one can get), so it's not as though he is entirely shunned by the academic community. If there is literature discrediting his theories, then that is to be included by all means. But I think he should be included where relevant and helpful, provided his work is presented in the proper context, i.e. as a somewhat antiquated theory. Aryaman (Enlist!) 13:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rydberg was a gifted person, and everything he wrote was not speculation. I have personally been impressed with parts of his work where he uses a descriptive method.--Berig (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: well, we'll just have to find out if his ideas found any echo in this particular case. If it's in the RGA, for example, it will be fair enough to to mention it. dab (𒁳) 13:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ottar

message: Can we get some clarification on this word? Checking Braune (1897:247) and Schützeichel (1995:331), I can find wuoten [wuotjan] ("wüten, rasen, wahnsinnig sein"), but no wuot. Kluge (1995:900) lists wuot under NHG Wut, but I can't track down the sources (Szemerényi, Röhrich, Heidermanns). Is this a back-construction? Or is it actually attested? Aryaman (Enlist!) 12:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: OHG ''wuot'': insanity

message: To confirm these citations and see exactly what is said, we need page numbers on the Rydberg citations and both page numbers and volume numbers on the Grimm citations. Otherwise, if I can't confirm them myself, I will pull them as being uncited. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page numbers on Grimm and Rydberg