Talk:Codex Runicus

message: The second half of the article, while it contained interesting information, seemed to have been written by someone for whom English is a second language. I've made some changes, which I've enumerated below along with some questions of my own.
#I removed the parenthetical phrase "not here presented" because, of course, the text is presented here.
#I rewrote the text that falls immediately before the transliteration, with the objective of rendering it more idiomatic while preserving the author's original intentions.
#I removed:
::Det Arnamagnæanske Haandskrift No 28, 8vo, Codex Runicus, udgivet i fotolitografisk Aftryk af Kommissionen for det Arnamagnæanske Legat (Kjøbenhavn, 1877). Johannes Brøndum-Nielsen and Svend Aakjær, Skånske lov, Danmarks gamle landskabslove, I (København, 1933), pp. 1–199
::Since this is in Danish (I think), it looked out of place to say the least. It might be two source citations, but I'm just not sure. It was formatted as a regular paragraph.
I left in, but modified, the following:
:The Codex Runicus has the signature AM 28 8vo and is stored in the Arnamagnæan Collection, part of the University of Copenhagen Faculty of Humanities, located in Copenhagen. (This looks like it may have something to do with the non-English paragraph I removed, above. Could someone verify?)
Could someone who better understands these things reword this so that it no longer uses the word "signature" in this context. I've looked it up, so I think I understand that the word, in this case, refers to a stamp that tells the binder or archivist what order the page comes in in relation to other documents in the collection. However, I'm not sure that's what it means, especially since, at least in the picture included, I have found no such stamp or mark disfiguring the page. In any case, it's a reference that I believe will be unclear to the majority of readers.
Also: The article doesn't say what language the text is in. I removed the sentence "the text is by n-gram simmilar to Swedish then to  Finnish" since I'm not completely sure what that's supposed to mean. I suspect it means that n-gram techniques have been applied and suggest that the language is more similar to Swedish than to Finnish, but a couple of things bother me about my suspicion:
First, it implies that there may be some controversy as to whether the text is in Swedish or Finnish, but the article doesn't mention any such controversy.
Second, since I believe that Swedish and Finnish are completely unrelated languages (unless we count the inevitable lexical borrowing), it seems odd that people would argue over whether this text was written in Swedish or Finnish. I could imagine argument as to whether is was written in early Swedish or early Danish—but Swedish or Finnish?
## This is a law text in Old Danish. Skåne, now in Sweden, used to be Danish.
## The older maps show Sweden as a much smaller country than it is today:
## The Swedes expanded their territory, and consider this their heroic age.
## Not much chance for Denmark and Norway to get their lost regions back
## unless local democracy should wish so, possibly through future EU regulations.
## Who knows
Anyway, I've done the best I could with the knowledge I have. I hope someone who knows more will be able to take this and move ahead with it. I'm really curious to know more about this topic. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Haukur. Well done! I've tried to place the sources back into the article, but I'm not sure how much success I've had. I suspect that either the source information given was incomplete or I didn't do it right (or some cocktail of the two). I was hoping that, in doing this, I might learn how to use the citation templates. I made the assumption that these two items were books, but the information available for them leaves many of the fields in the template for citing books blank and that date at the beginning of the citation without an author's name just doesn't look right. I suppose it's possible that the first item is for the codex itself (judging by the "No 28, 8vo, Codex Runicus"), but I don't know what the whole title says, so I can't be sure. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 03:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed some text 

message: The Article says: "The Codex Runicus is by most scholars considered a nostalgic or revivalist use of runes"
On what grounds do these scholars make this assumption? Do they really believe that people writing this kind of stuff in those days concerned themselves with such modern notions as nostalgie or revivalism? Isn't it much more likely that these people really were busy preserving a heratige that in some maybe small parts of the country was still vivid?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.243.40 (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Codex Runicus is by most scholars considered a nostalgic or revivalist use of runes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Codex Runicus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19991003125530/http://www.hum.ku.dk/ami/kk28.html to http://www.hum.ku.dk/ami/kk28.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19991002053657/http://www.hum.ku.dk/ami/am28.html to http://www.hum.ku.dk/ami/am28.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified