Talk:Ergi

message: A propos argr meaning bottom/maricon/catcher/uke, I think it could be of interest to mention the Old Norse word "rassragr", where rass is an old metathesis of "ars" (arse), and ragr a metathesis of "argr". Quite explicit. 85.226.122.237 21:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled comments 

message: As this is part of a series of articles on 'Religion and Homosexuality', and since it gets linked from that box at the right with all contemporary, practiced religions, I think it would be good to add a paragraph relating to neopaganism and homosexuality. --82.168.9.5 (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's mention Neopaganism 

message: In regard to considering homosexual sex as "top" Vs. "bottom"; has no writer considered the possiblity of "frot" (FRENCH - meaning - "rub", "to rub")? It is when the penii(sp?) are rubbed against each other.  Someone says "gay" or "homosexual", and immediatly visions of anal "sex" are conjoured up, to the exclusion of any others. Any research on male/male fellatio? Any research on male/male frot? Any research on female/female sex?
No !? Then get on it, if it exists, it is as valid as the rest.
76.170.115.193 (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding "anal" 

message: I stumbled over this part; 'In modern Scandinavian languages, argr has the meaning "angry"'.
To this I'll note that this is not an entirely correct translation of "arg". If we as an example look at Danish, then you can either say that you are "arg" over something, who can be understood as angry, but will more correctly be translated as 'despise' / 'disdain' over something/someone you see as wrong (mostly in form of an action who is wrong), you can also be the object (person) of what is "arg", what will then simply mean that you have done something morally/ethicly wrong. To confuse it even more, then you can also say about someone, that ex. he is "arg", but it will only be understood from connection of the speach in question, if the person in question we are talking about, is the one who is angry over a wrongdoing, or the wrongdoer himself ;-)
Regarding terms for homosexuality, then I'm somewhat sceptical of modern translations regarding this, in special when it comes to translation into non-Scandinavian languages, as the translations can't show how the orginal language in question worked, and how the different words worked. Reading the Sagas, then it's not always certain what about a person was deemed wrong, and I think it might be jumping to conclusions, if one judges from the standing of modern does and don'ts. Look closer at the sagas, and you might find that terms like argr or ergi, not are used about all homosexuals you find in the material. 
While modern Scandinavian does not reflect in all forms, the language of a thousand years ago, then it's notewordy that it has not evolved as fast as ex. English. With a knowledge of ex. modern textstandart Danish, and just a little added knowledge of how datives and the masc. & fem. case was used in large parts of Denmark, up to around 1900, then you will be able to read eastern Danish, and southern Norwegian and Swedish, from ca. 1200 and up, without too much difficulty. And if you have ex. grown up with western Danish dialects, then one can learn, fairly easy, to read western Danish, Faeroese and Icelandic, from at least 1200/1300 and up. 
This makes me question that a word like ex. "arg" should have shifted meaning, and I think that the form I show abowe, will be far closer to a true meaning and usage. Also do I note, from what I've heard from my grandparents, that up to only a few generations ago, out on the country side, it was only women who spoke about a named mans sexuality among themselves. If a man did so, he would had been regarded as having an "arg" interest in other men. People could live in homosexual relationships etc. even with people knowing, and without hearing a word for it, as long as they didn't show it in public, or spoke openly about it. One needs to understand that tabues evolve over time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.56.112.147 (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not entirely sure if I understand what you are trying to say about the meaning of arg in Danish, but if I do understand you correctly, then this seems different from the meaning in the other Scandinavian languages. In Norwegian (my own mother tongue) the word has almost entirely fallen out of use, but where it is still used it clearly means angry. A Norwegian dictionary mentions it can also mean irritable, which is not really a huge leap from angry. As far as I can tell from my own experience with Swedes, which seems to be confirmed by the Swedish dictionaries I've found, it has the same simple meaning of angry in Swedish. As such, it seems to me that your described Danish usage of the term is an exception from common Scandinavian usage, rather than an example of it. Maitreya (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Scandinavian 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ergi. 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/20070623024456/http://aarhus2001.hum.au.dk/rundborde/rundbord5paper2.html to http://aarhus2001.hum.au.dk/rundborde/rundbord5paper2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081001190615/http://www.arkeologi.uu.se/ark/education/CD/Cuppsats/CHT04/adolfsson.pdf to http://www.arkeologi.uu.se/ark/education/CD/Cuppsats/CHT04/adolfsson.pdf
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) 20:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The sociology theories put onto this wiki article serves nothing but a confusing purpose. Trying to understand iron-age societies views of homosexuality from a modern sociological constructionism perspective is a waste of everyones time. It might be interesting for sociology, but it is certainly not relevant for the meaning of this word to the people who spoke the language the word belongs to. A nitpicked excerpt of the incredibly few situations from the norse sagas that can be interpreted in any way shape or form as at least having a "not negative" view of homosexuality. It is evident just from the passage above this sociological theory, the Grey goose law, that just insinutating this about someone would get you outlawed or killed. To anyone who has read norse myth, and the later Icelandic sagas, it is painfully oblivious what their views on homosexuality were. And it serves no ones purpose to try to wiggle away from this historical fact, learn from the mistakes of the past instead of desperately trying to erase them.
In short; Putting historical sources from contemporary lawbooks next to one mans modern sociological theory serves no purpose but diluting what a reader is supposed to be able to gather from this wikipedia article.
:Trying to get into the heads of dead people is as valid a scholarly endeavour as any. No serious person attempting it would say it's easy, but it – and its associated risks – can't be entirely avoided in any branch of history.
:So instead of your seemingly defaitist attitude, why not add sourced alternative views with reasonable following in relevant disciplines? 2A00:801:2D1:8BAE:9D06:5EF:D04C:148E (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern interpretations of historical records